Talk:List of territorial disputes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of territorial disputes article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] East Asia Islands

I wish there was more about this, the level of hostility Japan, North & South Korea, Russia and China go to over a few rocks along the Asian shoreline is incredible.dzzycicero

Mongolia: ROC legal says "Article 4 The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." Say Mongolia no more part, then it is not.

This wikipedia say it cite legal documents to claims. show legal document say ROC claim mainland China! remove mainland china! no more claim to it.

[edit] Asia

Koreans including Korean government from both North and South. Never recognized Northern part of Baekdoosan as part of China. Korea and China land dispute alos includes " Korean Region" in Kando ( Manchuria) area. Many lands in Kando area that belongs to Korean Peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia (talk • contribs) 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a number of Asian territories (and possibly others) in which the two nations are neither bolded nor italicized. Also, some of the redlinks can be reworded so that they can be made blue links, especially the princely states in India and Pakistan. Becd22


[edit] Azad Kashmir

The said state is disputed territory and has been controlled by both Pakistan and India.
vkvora 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cabinda

Cabinda is claimed by both Angola (who controls it) and the DRC. Becd22

[edit] Israel/Palestine

1) Do Lebanon and Syria recognize Israel? I was under the impression that most Arab nations didn't.

2) I don't know if it's accurate to say that Israel partially controls the West Bank and Gaza and the PA partially controls it. That strikes me as being like saying that the State of Georgia partially controls its territory, and the United States partially controls it—Georgia manages day-to-day affairs, yes, but it's given all its authority by the U.S. In reality, the U.S. has all the power, and it just lets Georgia use some of it. Likewise, Israel lets the PA run Palestine for the most part, but it reserves the right to come in at any time and do whatever it wants, and it has and will completely ignore the PA when it suits its purposes, and the PA can't do anything about it. Israel is really the only controlling power there. Anyone disagree?

—Simetrical (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • 1) Whether Israel is regonized by state X is irrelevant here, as long as state X does not lay any claim to (part of) its territory. So forget about Lebanon, list Syrian claim on Golan there, not in chief of all of Israel
  • 2) Your analogy is cripple: a US state is not a sovereign nation, but in fact a voluntary member of the federal USA (once of the Confederacy); the US can't lay claim to what is already their's. The Cisjordanian Westbank is certainly under Israeli (military) control, but since on 31 July 1988 Jordan abandoned its claims to it, the technical question is whether any state claims it, i.e. whether there is in fact/law a Palestinian state (not just if there should be one, that's a political choice). Since only other neighbour Egypt does not claim the Gaza strip, the same question applies there- answering the question whether the Palestinian National Authority is a state (in either case it is something sui generis) goes beyond the scope of our list, the puzzle defies world diplomacy since generations.

Fastifex 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canary Islands

Why isn't the Canary Islands included? Morocco still claim them. RAYMI.


[edit] Estonian - Russian dispute is over

The territories listed here are not disputed any more. Estonia has ratified the border agreement, which states that the border between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Estonia follows the former 'line of control' or to make it more clear, the Soviet-era border between RSFSR and Estonian SSR. According to this line, Ivangorod and other territories mentioned in the article were part of Russia and the border treaty affirmed that those territories shall remain Russian.Constanz 09:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Should the entries be removed if the dispute no longer exists? I think so, otherwise this list could get really long when olde disputes are added. Shocktm | Talk | Contributions 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would advise, yes. The border treaty has not been ratified by Russia, but it doesn't change the matter, as Estonian side has nolens-volens accepted the loss of territories (the first premier to do that was Andres Tarand in 1994). Constanz 14:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the same goes for Latvian-Russian dispute which was caused by the same reason (territorial- administrative changes at the beginning of Soviet occupation). As far as I know, Latvia and Russia have signed the treaty and probably ratified it as well Constanz 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rockall

As far as I understand from the Rockall article, the «conflict» -insofar there is a conflict between Denmark, Iceland, Ireland and the UK only revolves around extraction rights linked to the continental shelf.

This does not seem to justify enough inclusion of Rockall in the list, thence my removal of this item. French Tourist 18:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Granted The main economic interest is in the shelf (and consquently what can be extracted mineral-wise), but you can only claim the shelf if the (above-sea) territory is under your sovereignty. Rockall itself is, of course, totally useless, but it is a proxy by which these states argue for the shelf. Since Rockall itself is the justification for dispute, it seems appropriate to leave it here. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I have no special competency in international law, I am not sure your interpretation is correct. Rights of extraction on the continental shelf extend even beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone -which extends itself beyond National Waters proper, and really I don't think they are "territorial" by nature.
Look for instance at French-Canadian conflicts around Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon (here for instance). Before the arbitration of 1992 there was no dispute about sovereignty over any land, of course, not even about the extension of National Waters. There was a part of interpretation of treaties as concerns EEZ though, and an international arbitration was necessary. Even with this international arbitration, some space remains for doubts about rights over continental shelf : see specifically here and a deal was signed last year between France and Canada to avoid a new conflict.
All this lengthy example to maintain my position : though I am ready to admit in this page conflicts about national waters (as Slovenia vs Croatia) I think disputes about EEZs, and still worse about rights on the shelf should be excluded. A dispute about the shelf is economical, not territorial. French Tourist 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Justin, though, that Rockall should be listed in this article; you're free to add footnotes explaining the specific situation, though. Cheers, —Nightstallion (?) 22:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ROC

Mongolia: ROC legal says "Article 4 The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." Say Mongolia no more part, then it is not.

This wikipedia say it cite legal documents to claims. show legal document say ROC claim mainland China! remove mainland china! no more claim to it.

I believe this in by user:Chen Zen, but was unsigned. I understand you are tring to making about the legal technicalities in the ROC. But you cannot change the article without providing evidence for your position. Kevlar67 09:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I add the fact inspection regarding mainland China. The present time no claim originates in Republic of China government does not make the territorial claims in mainland China. Madman Chiang kai shek is dies and therefore is the claims he rules the mainland. The claims in the mainland should be in the old map, but the constitution does not define Republic of China territory. In 1991 Li condemned like this claims in the mainland.

If this wikipedia claim only because the madman Chiang Kai Shek word on mainland then Hong Kong and Aomen must add on this page. He always condemned treaties like British adopts the Chinese territory in the old treaty. After Second World War, he expected (and Roosevelt tells him) to reclaim Hong Kong after surrender Japanese. This wikipedia needs to cite as proof, Republic of China still requested the mainland, or it must also said, Republic of China claims mainland, Hong Kong and Aomen on madman words.

I have cited a source. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of China in Mainland China, no constitutional action has been made to renounce claims to the Mainland, so I consider ROC claiming mainland a valid description.--Jusjih

The constitution does not define Republic of China territory! Demonstrates where it defines! In the constitution time, Republic of China has not even controls Taiwan! So you will quotes citation arrangement modern Republic of China to deny it to have the current territory of Taiwan!

Until relatively recently official maps published in the Republic of China Mongolia is considered part of the ROC. Over these years no action that fulfills the constitutional requirement has been made to renounce the claim on Mongolia (although the government under Chen and his party have stopped publishing such maps). — Instantnood 20:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though the ROC Constitution does not define its territory, earlier Constitution-like documents did claim Mongolia but not Taiwan to be ROC territory, but I cannot find English translations yet. The Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China does mention Taiwan Province, so I would consider both Taiwan and Mongolia constitutional territories, but this is just my personal opinion, which is not legally binding at all.--Jusjih 04:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a debate as to whether the area controlled by the Republic of China is in fact still de jure an occupied territory (Treaty of San Francisco 1952). This would deem it under military occupation by the ROC government acting on behalf of the 'Occupying Power'(United States, per pro the WW2 Allies). Although the US has never claimed the ROC-controlled area formerly, and has expressed that Unification should be the eventual goal this should be noted. RAYMI 30/3/06

This thing may be interesting. Several ROC legislators have petitioned the Judicial Yuan to interpret whether the ROC territory would include Mainland China and Mongolia, but the Judicial Yuan replied in its Interpretation 328 that it is not supposed to interpret this thing. I will post a copy at Wikisource and a citation here soon.--Jusjih 14:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atacama corridor

The Atacama corridor doesn't really "fit in" with the rest of the disputes. Official Bolivian maps don't show the corridor as part of Bolivia. Bolivia has not officially claimed any piece of land, only claimed its right to a coastline. 200.119.252.28 00:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Much as I respect your position I disagree, as if it includes coastline, it will include COAST, i.e land. RAYMI 09/06/06.

[edit] New Entries (Raymi)

I have made a few new entries in this section, which may well cause discussions. In no apparant order, here they are: Klel peninsula: obtained info from web. Preah Temple : from CIA World Factbook. confiscated Liechtenstein lands: as above. Bubiyan and Warbah: apparantly claim has reasserted itself through various government ministers. Kolok river mouth: obtained via web. three additional Spanish PDS off North African coast: these are well documented on various sites. Kok Chang Pheuk:documented from Asian news reports. Umm Qasr: from documented chat by Major General Dutton, US Commander Multinational Division SE. 2400 acres of Kosovoan land: from a UN report; note Assembly vote reference. Al Buraymi from www.countrydata.com Dhu-Harab: from www.al-bab.com Tuzla island : well documented on the net, e.g www.foreignpolicy.org.ua Big Ussuni Island: www.services.cnd.org North Bass Island/Isle of St George: www.geocarta.blogspot.com Kolpino Island: www.einst.ee Shatt al-Arab: lots of sources, very well-documented. Should be included for significance. I also hear that there are various silt banks and mud flats that are contested, but I cannot find anything on the web.Yet. Bubare village: ongoing disput unsettled after many years involving the moving of border 'beacons'. Ernst Thalmann: wiki entry has some info (check spelling). De facto dispute. Please comment on these entries politely. RAYMI 09/06/06.

[edit] Help. Please.

Any additional information regarding possible entry into this section of the following:- Sevastapol, Gibraltar (isthmus and border area), Prevlaka and disputes lacking placenames between Burkina Faso and Benin, and also the river islands in the Danube between Bulgaria and Romania. Also does any contributors agree with the following additions:- Canary Islands, Bird Island (to include Montserrat) and the question of the Arctic Polar Regions. While this does not cover land, per se, it is of importance. RAYMI 09/06/06

[edit] More additions

Changed Ligitan and Sipidan to add de Filipino claim. Deleted and revised Kazakh/Uzbeki entries. (ref www.iwpr.net) Added Maarboun (www.cedarlands.proboards). Also Mosul (www.danielpipes.org). More soon. RAYMI. (Again!)

[edit] Yet More (RAYMI)

More entries:- Prevlaka (no final agreement yet), Bosniak enclave near Sastavci, Canary Islands, land near Mejico de la Cruz (www.timesonline.net), Minicoy (Maldivian official stated that island was historically Maldivian), Motaying, Deir Al-Ashayr (www.digital.library.unt.edu). Have quoted OAU 1964 resolution opt out by Morocco for Canaries. Interestingly, Somalia opted out too, hence Constitutional claims for Ogaden area, etc. I am trying to get more research done on tripoint disagreements in Africa, and also whether any current governments/ministers/officials/monarchs etc have made irredentist claims on foriegn soil. I am still contemplating an entry for the Polar regions. RAYMI 13/06/06.

[edit] More edits

Made some extra changes this a.m; these involve adding notes/links to Sino-Russian border agreement, as Republic of China do not recognize any agreement involving the People's Republic of China, the Aegean dispute link for Imia/Kardak, and a change to Sakhalin. While Japan adheres to the SFPT, it regards Sakhalin as no man's land. RAYMI. 14/06/06. Added ROC claim to Northern Burma. As this claim dates from at least 1949, I have described the area as Burma, rather than Myanmar. This information was gleaned from the Wiki article on the Republic of China. Which got its' information from ROC maps. RAYMI (AGAIN) 14/06/06.

[edit] Yet More Entries

Another shedload of entries. Check out the Vatican one obtained from source maps from German Wikipedia!!!!!! RAYMI againnnnnnn

[edit] Guess what? More entries!

New ones:- Tindouf, Hermon, Io/Parang Island, Al-Darreh. Regards, Raymi.......

[edit] ....and the hits just keep on coming....

More: altered French Guiana dispute, added Kula Kangri, Bure, Rho, Strongill, Ploce and Nymark. Will add something on Algeria/Mali/Niger tripoint (10 km dispute) when I get the chance to put the co-ordinates in! All of above except tripoint disputed area have wikipedia-available information........ RAYMI. ps. Sikkim.

[edit] Greater Mongolia

Apparantly, the Republic of China, as part of its' claim to Greater Mongolia, claims certain bits of Russia. Tuva is one, can anyone inform me what other bit, or bits this includes. Ta, Raymi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.68.39.212 (talk • contribs) 07:32, June 23, 2006 (UTC). Done! Buryat Republic. RAYMI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.68.39.212 (talk • contribs) 09:00, June 23, 2006 (UTC).

See Tannu Uriankhai. The Sino-Soviet/Sino-Russian border has always been in dispute, until Jiang Zemin signed a treaty renouncing almost all former claims. — Instantnood 23:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And more.........

4 South American disputes from garnet.acns.fsu.edu. 4 pending disputes (still not agreed dispite Sino-Russian border agreement) from ciaonet.org.Also one from pacificislandtravel.com...unrelated to the Pacific! There are also 'around 40 disputed spots' in the Ferghana dispute. Doing more research. RAYMI. Feedback per-lease.

[edit] Source

It would be nice if sources of the information recently added [1] are provided. — Instantnood 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Shall try to add more sources in future, but as a start...River Congo via World Factbook, as was Okpara River. Benin/Niger dispute is at the ICJ, but part gleaned from World Factbook too. Zuqar from Wikipedia!! All the Americam continental disputes are via a Paul Cornell edu site. The Armenia/Azerbaijan dispute (more exact than previous), Sikkim enclaves and Fergana Valley are via an EXCELLENT exclave/enclave site www.vinokurov.info. The Ghana Togo one was obtained from several news reports on web.Hibernia Reef forms part of the disputed Indonesia/Australia fishing grounds; info via Wikipedia and Aussie news sources. I also added a Malay/Singaporean dispute which I found on the net. www.singaporewindow.org, I think. I normally get a half hour a day to search AND add stuff via work PC. Hope this helps a bit.Assuring you of my best intentions, Raymi.
Please cite the source(s) when you add anything to the list, and please sign your messages with ~~~~ (four tildes). — Instantnood 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More................................RAYMI

Greetings, utis posse..... latest pickings:- Galabat/Gedaref from www.sudan.net/news; Isla Martin Garcia from www.law.fsu.edu. Also for Arroio Invernada and Sete Quedas. Questions:- does Greece still have a latent/unrenounced territorial claim to the Albanian parts of Northern Epirus? Is the Algerian/Tunisian border still disputed? Is there a dispute over a village on the Guinea/Ivory Coast border? All assistance gratefully received.Ta. RAYMI.

[edit] Sikkim, etc.

copied from User talk:80.68.39.212

Why did you list Sikkim as disputed between China and India? China has formally recognized Sikkim as a part of India. There is no dispute. Please check your sources before adding falsehoods. -- ran (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Bolshoy Ussuriisk has been divided between China and Russia in a recent treaty. There is no longer any dispute. Once again please check your sources!! -- ran (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sino-Korean border was demarcated way back in 1964!! Baekdu Mountain was divided between China and North Korea -- so where did the dispute come from?!

That's it. I'm going to revert ALL of changes you made. I'm really sorry, because I know you've worked hard on this. But after finding three errors about one single country, I don't think I can regard your contributions as credible. -- ran (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

end copy

[edit] ok

I've calmed down now. I thought it was a bit harsh. I DON'T have a PC, and access to one is only on my work lunch break or b4 I start, hence delayed reply.... What I will do is to go through my previous additions during the next couple of weeks, and give sources (although some were listed in previous posts of this article). I am also not an editing expert so this will take WEEKS of work. It would be NICE if you could reinsert two previous bits; these are sourced:- the Vatican City/Italy dispute was sourced from a map on German Wikipedia (no, REALLY!!!!!), and was stated so originally. The African tripoint reference included map co-ordinates, and was from a gent called Brownlie's report. This can be found easily by putting "African" and "tripoints" into a search engine such as Google. In reference to Sikkim, I accept what you say. On the CIA's World Factbook, it STILL states that Baekdu is undemarcated. The three Assuri River Islands have not, according to my Source, been handed over, but I ACCEPT what you are saying, and my argument is not definitive. With the best will in the world I had worked hard on these, and it would be a gesture of goodwill if you could reinsert the two aforementioned bits, or at least accept my proposals. Hopefully we can work together, and my frenetic research can be combined with editorial strength. I think my position on this is at least pragmatic.

Hi Raymi,
I've put back the Vatican dispute. As for the Algeria/Mali/Niger tripoint, here are some things that I found:
[2]
Conventions relating to the tracing of borders concluded by Algeria. ...
Convention relating to the demarcation of the State border between the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria and the Republic of Niger signed January 05, 1983
Convention relating to the demarcation of the State border between the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria and the Republic of Mali Signed May 08, 1983
[3]
...However, it also applies to past tensions with Tunisia over the Jafara plain and the Ghadames tripoint; to tensions between Libya and Niger over Toummo oasis; to the recent crisis in relations between Libya and Algeria over the Ghat border region; to the 1963 'war of the sands' between Algeria and Morocco; to the issue of Moroccan recognition of the existence of an independent Mauritanian state; and to the Algerian problems with Niger and Mali until the border demarcation in 1983.
[4]
Mauritania and Algeria made no comment on their common border until 1983, when they announced that delimitation and demarcation had been achieved as part of the process of Mauritania's adhesion to the Algerian inspired Treaty for Concord and Fraternity. Similar announcements were made in conjunction with Niger and Mali in the same year.
[5]
..Demarcation agreements were concluded with Mali and Niger in 1983.
-- ran (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for the restoration, and for the correction. From tomorrow onward, I will try (work permitting to source all the previous entries, with explanations for a few. one to note for now (without source, as I only have two mins to type this, sorry, at work...) is the Ethiopian/Eritrean border towns were awarded to Eritrea by the ICJ, I believe but Ethiopia does not agree with this. The ICJ were involved in the award of the Preah Temple (excuse spelling), but the access to the area is 'restricted' (World Factbook), and that's since 1962! The Eritrea/Yemen island was a wiki acquisition. I will be having a quick log on to this at 5.25 BST, but otherwise by til tomorrow. Thank you, Ran, once again. RAYMI--80.68.39.212 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--80.68.39.212 14:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)== ALSO ==

Shag Rocks is part of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia region, and therefore the same dispute, but is often mentioned separately in context geographically. Hence my entry. I think there is a Wiki entry on this. RAYMI--80.68.39.212 14:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion:-

Hi. Wonder if we could reinstate the following for starters:-Bure,Tsorona/Zalambessa,Zuqar Island, Shag Rocks, Portland Canal, Hermon, isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain, Isthmus of Perekop, Nymark and the summit of Mont Blanc, were, memory serves, all sourced from Wikipedia. Also can we re-alphabeticise Shebaa Farms and Talpatty/New Moore Island and also Van, Kars and Western Province. These disputes are not in doubt, I just put them in alphabetic order. RAYMI--80.68.39.212 07:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bubare and Bure

First two:- Bubare www.nationaudio.com/News/EastAfrican/10022003/Regional/Regional27.html Bure en.wikipedia.org --80.68.39.212 11:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC) RAYMI Let me know if these are acceptable to reinstate??

Bubare dispute appears to be resolved: [6]

I'll put the Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute back in.

-- ran (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] next three....

Caprivi (Strip):- www.home.worldonline.dk. Also worth a look at "Africa" "tripoint" if the 'link' doesn't work. There is a contention over the border here.... islands in the River Congo:- I got this from the World Factbook; www.cia.gov/publications/factbook. This is a source I used for quite a few disputes. Unlike some bits, I have not got the names of the islands individually. Corisco Bay:- the UN are 'mediating' in the dispute here. A good source is www.ininnews.org. I will make another post in a bit. Thanks for your help. RAYMI--80.68.39.212 14:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corisco Bay.....and the tangled tale of the Canary Islands

The best site here is:- www.un.org/Depts/dpa/africastory.html I'm quite confident with this. It names the three islands individually as Mbanié, Cocotiers and Congas, which was my change to the original entry.

OK, (deep breath). The Canary Islands. Wiki has stuff on the concept of a 'Greater Morocco', and while Morocco is NOT formally persuing Canarian integration/union with itself, it has not renounced the claim it made in the past. In fact Morocco (along with Somalia) do not agree with the OAU's 1964 agreement on post-colonial boundaries, and will not sign any median line agreements with Spain on sea demarcation. Morocco is no longer a member of the OAU, and although there are disputes on the Plazas de Soberania (excuse spelling?) with Spain already, this may be a latent colonial hangover too. One source is www.answers.com/topic/canary-islands. I believe a mention, with a footnote is acceptable.--80.68.39.212 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC) RAYMI.

...Wow... you work fast! I can't really look at all of these right now... so is it alright if I got back to this over the next 24 hours? -- ran (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more disputes...

Absolutely. Just like to add one if I may, though (sorry). There is a very in depth article on Wiki reference the disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain. This is, technically, a separate dispute from the Gibraltar dispute!!!!!! There is a link to a map! This is due to the exact wording of the Treaty that assigned Gibraltar to Spain. I have found sources for around 20 of the 108 I contibuted to during June. Have to work quick, as I have no PC at home!!!!!!!!! Many many thanks. RAYMI.--80.68.39.212 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC) RAYMI--80.68.39.212 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC) RAYMI--80.68.39.212 15:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] isthmus Gib/Sp

I have added the above one in Europe. As said previously there is an excellent article on Wiki, which has a link to a map. Don't think this one is in doubt at all. Have managed to work out how to link, which may be easy for you guys, but I've never owned a PC in my life!! RAYMI--80.68.39.212 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)--80.68.39.212 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources from World Factbook

The following were completely or partially sourced from the above on-line publication (www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook) AFRICA islands in the River Congo Lake Nyasa River N'Tem Okpara ASIA Chittagong Hill Tracts Fergana Valley Preah Vihear Temple Shatt Al-Arab (good wiki article, too) EUROPE Former Liechtenstein-owned lands

Hope this helps....RAYMI--80.68.39.212 12:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki sourced articles

The following were all sourced from SOURCED Wikipedia articles Penon de Alhucemas, Shag Rocks, Portland Canal, Kula Kangri, Minicoy Island, isthmus of Perekop, the summit of Mont Blanc, Nymark, note TECHNICAL CLAIM- IF A BRITISH CITIZEN CLAIMS NEW LAND (uti posseditis), by virtue of ALL British land being in pssession of the Crown, then it is British property and cannot under UK law be privately owned unless freehold is granted by the Reigning monarch, or granted by an Act of Parliament per pro The Crown..., Ploce, Rho-the article suggests that it is in the Aegean Grey Zone and Brecqhou. RAYMI--80.68.39.212 12:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raymi, with regards to the wiki sourced articles, I'm put all of them back in except for:
  • Shag Rocks: already a part of the South Georgia dispue
  • Minicoy Island: a senior official making remarks is NOT the same as a country pressing official claims. I haven't found anything that suggests a territorial dispute between the Maldives and India.
  • Perekop: since it connects Ukrainian territory to Ukrainian territory, I don't see how Russia is claiming it. Certainly the Wikipedia article is quite intriguing, but it doesn't make any kind of positive statement either.
  • Nymark: a British citizen wanting to set up a micronation is not the same as the United Kingdom claiming the land. The UK has not made any territorial claim to Nymark.
  • Ploce: Bosnia and Herzegovina does not appear to claim Ploce. They may *want* Croatia to grant them certain features of sovereignty, but that is not the same as claiming that they already have legal sovereignty now.
  • Brecqhou: What's the dispute? A private company has expressed a desire to make Brecqhou political separate, but that is not the same as another sovereign state making claims on Brecqhou.

-- ran (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work... and keep em coming! =) -- ran (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again.

Thanks again; I will try to do more research about several of the areas, particularly Isthmus of Perekop, there was a linked dispute over Tuzla Island, which has no Wiki reference, which is fairly dormant as we speak between the same two parties. On an entirely different subject, Shatt Al-Arab is another Wiki sourced former entry. This is quite a well-known dispute, and worth your attention. There is an exceptional immaculately-researched Adobe-based site about enclaves and exclaves, which I will reference soon. This has led to disputes over territory particularly between India and Bangladesh, and Azerbaijan and Armenia, and was very useful for me to reference several disputes. I believe that an entry for Chittgong Hill Tracts or Cooch Behar enclave system should be added to List of Territorial Disputes, but I'll reference the site first. Also, reference my previous post on World Factbook. Could we not have Shag Rocks mentioned, i.e, 'see also' during the South Georgia section????? RAYMI--80.68.39.212 07:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More discussion points:-

Apologies for the complete lack of order here; this is my work lunch break, so, best I can do..... Ligitan and Sipidan. There is a claim by the Phillipines here. Both have been put into Sabah by Malaysia. While the Sabah dispute is listed, the ICJ did not accept the Filipino claim as valid. Sakhalin:- also listed. Japan recognises this area as 'no man's land'. While it cannot claim under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it does not recognize Russian sovereignty. Shebaa Farms: my edit was purely alphabetical. Can we reinstate as before????? Plati and Strongill: both in the disputed Aegean area. The following website has detail on enclaves/exclaves. While many are not disputes at all, it does cover Armenia/Azerbaijan territorial occupations of enclaves/exclaves well. Also, there is a great section on the Fergana Valley and Cooch Behar enclaves/exclaves which cause problems. www.vinokurov.info/enclaves.htm My opinions on the rejected disputes so far:- Shag Rocks:- as before, can we mention this in the South Georgia bit? Minicoy:- I accept your argument as correct. Thank you! Perekop:- I think we both accept more research is needed here. Nymark:- I stand by my original statement in the last post, but accept its non-entry. Ploce:- I think this is a grey area. More research needed. If Bosnia want sovereignty, by whatever means, in this case a lease, I think it should qualify. But see your POV too. Brecqhou:- This was in the 'some control/non-recognition' category, and you will note the (2) RESIDENTS want a sort of UDI here. Guernsey is not exercising effective control, and the Balliwick is a non-sovereign self-governing territory. Many thanks for your help.--80.68.39.212 12:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)RAYMI

For Ploce, it is not a matter of POV, but a matter of the scope of this list. This list covers only actively maintained territorial disputes, not deals that people want to make in the future. For example, if both A and B say that a place rightfully belongs to them, then that's a dispute, but if A acknowledges that a place belong to B right now and wants to obtain it from B, then that's not a dispute, because A is not claiming that A already legally owns that place.
For Brecqhou, it's the same thing as Ploce. There's a difference between residents wanting something and residents saying that they already legally have it.
-- ran (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Shag Rocks etc..... Am going to put Shebaa Farms in alphabetical order, and TRY to start compiling a complete list of Sourced info. Could take a while. RAYMI.--80.68.39.212 07:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sea territories?

There's for instance a dispute between Russia and Norway over the Barents Sea. I suppose there are also several similar disputes globally. Perhaps this should be made into an article? If there is one already, I apologize, but suggest that there should be a link to it. Barnebarnet 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antartica?

There's a few disputes over Anartica. It looks like this is covered in the article "Antartica". I'd like to suggest a link to that article. Barnebarnet 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIA World Factbook

To make the list more authoritative, please use <ref name="CIA"> to cite information from the CIA World Factbook. Otherwise, there are too many unsourced items.--Jusjih 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frozen dispute about Antarctica

Is the use of frozen here serious, or is it supposed to be a joke? If so, could it be changed to something more suitable (e.g. suspended) Joseph Sanderson 15:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] italy vatican city dispute

To the good people at Borderpoint (www.groups.yahoo); this dispute was originally sourced by myself from German Wikipedia, and there is a map displayed on there. This is a 3m by 60m dispute! It is apparantly a pathway. I would like to join Borderpoint eventually when I get my own internet account!!!!!! Sad but true! RAYMI! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.68.39.212 (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wrangel, Herald, DeLong

It appears that the State of Alaska's Court made a judgement stating that these islands should be American. My source is www.touchngo.com. The US previously made an agreement with the USSR in 1990 to alter Pacific and Arctic sea boundaries in favour of Russia. This agreement was never ratified by the Russian Duma. Unlike Sea Lion Rock, Sea Otter Rock and Copper Island, these islands have, according to a reply given to State Department Watch, 'never been American territory'. There is a certain impasse in the agreed status of these islands between Alaska, the US Government and Russia. Feel free to comment. RAYMI 80.68.39.212 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chumbi and Dobta

These 2 enclaves were Sikkimese, and were in Tibet. The past tense refers to the period up to 1959. The People's Republic of China absorbed Tibet in that year, including these two enclaves. At the time of writing, the PRC have recognized Sikkim as part of India, and India have recognized PRC sovereignty over 'much' of Tibet. I state the word 'much' advisedly, as there are noted territorial matters outstanding between the two nations that include areas which are often referred to as Tibet. However, if Sikkim has been recognized as part of India by the PRC, this may or may not include the two enclaves being recognized as Indian. Sikkim at no time relinquished the areas. To further complicate matters, the ROC, which is not by either nation, claims all of mainland China, which may or may not include the two enclaves. In 1959, neither the ROC or Sikkim recognized each other. The population of these two enclaves in 1959 was less than 1000. RAYMI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.68.39.212 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC). Sikkim's absorption by India in 1975, was unrecognized by the ROC. 80.68.39.212 14:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland

Shouldnt Northern Ireland be listed here somewhere ? (Gnevin 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)) No. The self styled "Republic of Ireland" has finally seen sense and acknowledged reality that Ulster is BRITISH! YourPTR! 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiribati and Cook Islands vs US entries 25/4/07

I have been trying to research these for a while. The US has ceded many islands and atolls to other countries in the last 30 years (ref www.doi.gov). It appears that they MAY have ceded these (State Department Watch states this), but the treaties in question do not mention these islands specifically. It may be an error with the Treaties, but my understanding is if a island is claimed under the Guano Islands Act (these islands were claimed that way), and the claim not ceded by a TREATY or Executive Order, they remain American. Therefore the status, DE JURE, is unclear.80.68.39.212 15:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) RAYMI

Do we know what islands were claimed to begin with & still listed as such? A treaty to relinquish a whole group may not always need to be stated individually for every island within that group, unless they were all specified in that manner as such. That-Vela-Fella 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cooper Island

One list entry now reads:

Cooper Island currently links to a page about a southern hemisphere island off South Georgia. This may be included in the dispute over that territory between the UK and Argentina, but I do not believe either the US or Canada has any claims in that area.

The boldface indicates that Canada has control over this island, so I looked in the Geographical Names Data Base to see if there is another Cooper Island.

The CGNDB has six entries for islands named "Cooper Island", one "Île Cooper", and one "Coopers Island". Of the eight latitude and longitude positions given, four are coastal positions off Newfoundland and Labrador, and three others are inland positions (i.e. they would be lake or river islands), one each in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Of these the only one anywhere vaguely near the US border is the Ontario one, which is between Sudbury and Lake Nipissing, certainly not disputed territory. The remaining position given is 48°52'N 125°21'W. which is off the west coast of Vancouver Island, BC. This is about 40 miles from mainland Washington State and also seems unlikely to be claimed by the US.

What is going on with this entry?

Could it be a mistake for "Copper Island"? There is a Copper Island listed elsewhere on the page as disputed between the US and Russia, not Canada. Wikipedia's Copper Island page is about a place that's actually part of mainland Michigan, and while it does extend into Lake Superior, it's clearly on the US side of the border with Canada. The CGNDB shows 21 instances of "Copper Island" in Canada, plus one "Îles à Copper" and one "Copper Islands"; I'm not going to check that many locations to see if any one is plausibly what was meant.

207.176.159.90 00:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My information was sourced off the State Department Watch website; it appears that it is off Southern Alaska. After all my work on this section I am running out!!!!! Help!!! Raymi!!!80.68.39.212 07:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banaba Island: Kiribati and Fiji

I know Banaban refugees have moved to Fiji but I was not aware that there was any dispute about Banaba. I have read that Banaba wants to become sovereign, but nothing about Fiji claiming it.-Indolences 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ems/Eems-Dollart/Dollard

If the Ems-Dollart-dispute between Germany and the Netherlands refers to the one which was settled in the Ems-Dollart treaty of 1960 (and the addendum of 1962) it should be moved to former territorial disputes IMHO. See also the discussion at Commons:Image talk:Territorial disputes Europe.svg. I added a note in paranthesis and modified the map. Bamse 00:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Tyrol

I would also mention South Tyrol as territorial dispute, because Italy got the full administration there in 1919 illegaly. And still today, 55% of the inhabitants of South Tyrol want to be reunificated with Austria, and Austria tries it now by a law, which declares that it has the full duty to defend the inhabitants of this province in case of non-keeping of the '46 Contract of Paris. Next year there will be a referendum on self-determination. Don't you think, it's worth mentioning? 07-18-2007--HannesM

I don't see a challenge from Austria since they also settled any disputes with Italy in 1992. See pages 114/115 & 134 for the 1955 entry.[7] It just looks more like an internal situation & as far as the referendum mentioned, that was actually rejected (unless a new proposal was just done now). That-Vela-Fella 22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quatern Island hoax WP article

I deleted Quatern Is. (Bangladesh-India) from the list. The Quatern Is. article has been marked for speedy deletion from WP. This was a hoax article placed in 2004 by students studying Quaternary Science at the Univ. of Edinburgh from an anon. IP address at that school. There is no Quatern Is. There is no island at all in the (too-deep) waters 25 miles off of the Bangladesh-India coast or, in fact, anywhere near this location (10-100 miles) off the coast. The original hoax article laughingly placed the island in the "Pacific Ocean", "contested between India and Pakistan" (this is nowhere near the Pacific), "off SE India" (nowhere near Pakistan), as a haven for geese in the summer (Geese occur mostly or entirely only in winter in this area) with a bogus wildlife research center present. Subsequent anon. IP addresses added non-existant-Shell oil drilling and a hoax ecotourism plan. Other than WP mirror site hits (up to 200+ by now!), there is no occurence of a Quatern Is. in any internet site nor any published atlas, map, or book. It simply does not exist. I removed the link to this page from WP's List of Disputed Territories. (Well-meaning WP editors have tried to make sense of this hoax article since 2004, making well-intentioned guesses at fixing the most obvious errors. In the fall of 2004, a Quaternary Science workshop was organized at the Univ. of Edinburgh, providing the motivation for this hoax "Quatern Is." .... http://rock.geosociety.org/qgg/Newsletter%20Spring%2004.pdf) }} .....DLinth, professional geographer/cartographer for past 30 years. DLinth 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting response: Congratulations on spotting my fake article! However, some of the reasons you cited in the AFD discussion are incorrect. I was actually a history student, and it was an attempt to show how rapidly 'facts' and alternative histories can be created and propagated via Wikipedia. Puerile maybe, but it worked as a proof for 3 years! ----82.26.182.37 20:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (won't use my username as I am otherwise reputable with a huge number of good edits :) )DLinth 16:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Europe. County of Olivença / Olivenza : Spain and Portugal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.133.254 (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check Links

Can someone check all of the links in this article. Simply browsing through, I've seen

  • Moa needs to be Moa River
  • Okpara needs to be Okpara River
  • Congas needs to be Congas Islands

I've changed these. They are all red links. I suppose there are more and I really don't have the time to.

Also, can Image:Territorial disputes Europe.svg have Bosnia and Herzegovina higighted? See: Sastavci. Sseballos (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Website

See this website: [8] for information. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gavdos

The map is wrong.Gavdos is not disputed anyhow.People live there i mean how could it be disputed;By the sea birds of Mediterranean;We must distinguish facts from wishful thinking otherwise Istanbul is disputed Trabzon is disputed etc etc Eagle of Pontus (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The map needs to be updated then.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Full control?

Seems like the statement in some areas (unless they were previously divided) marked as "Bold indicates one claimant's full control" would look confusing to some as to which nation is in actual control of the disputed land. This needs to be cleaned up (verified) & sourced wherever possible.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)