Talk:Succession of states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although the succession of states theory can be criticized for being undemocratic, it has not been obliviated (at least in practice) by the self-determination clause of the United Nations charter.

Contents

[edit] Succession of states theory in sports?

Is the Succession of states theory used in sports? Example: Are all the prices won by the USSR today in the headquarters of Russian sports federations (I mean the cups, the players have the medals).

[edit] Disputed: Contradiction in content

Succession of states has no real evidence besides in the field of international recognition and properties that require the consent of others. There is nothing here that supports a lot of what is said in the top half of the article. Where are the references? The only thing here is participation of international organizations and recognition by other countries (such as is explicitly stated by the Vienna Treaty). The first part appears to be... well... bullshit.

[edit] So-called undiscussed edits

I made my edits piecemeal and with several comments in addition to pointing out above that the article's information was contradictory as well as unsourced. It is in general disagreement with what is found in the top matches according to Google. Jiang has a very particular POV view regarding Chinese/Taiwanese politics that my clarifications here may upset. His motivations for reverting me--I urge my fellow wikipedians to decide.

[edit] Page Move

I'd do it, but apparently I'm too new. See the following sets of results from Google [1] (over 10,000 hits) versus [2] (over 1,000 hits, top hits are wikipedia and wikipedia "syndicators").Moveapage 09:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason to do it, and the Google stats aren't terribly convincing to me. Why do you think this would be beneficial? CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

Three articles (Succession of states, Successor state, and Predecessor state) have been marked for merger for a very long time, but have had no discussion. I hereby propose to do it. The result would be more complete and better understood. More like an encyclopedia, less like a dictionary. Any comments? Hult041956 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC) (corrected a misspelling my own previous comment Hult041956 23:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC) )

I placed the tags for merge initially, and of course I still support it. I regret, however, that I missed the opportunity to raise this on the talk page before. I think that in a complete article, we will be able to cover the "succession of states" under the three different fields where the concept is commonly invoked (1) international law (who gets the UN seat?), (2) historiography (which ancient civilization influenced this later civilization?) and (3) romantic nationalism (we consider our newly independent nation as a revival of our ancestors' glorious history)--Pharos 19:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I did the merge today. Essentially I cut & pasted everything from "Successor state" and "Predecessor state" into this article. I did a some blending in, a bit of copy editing, and deleted some redundancy, but not much else. I have hardly achieved anything like the article you suggest. Perhaps at least, we now have a single foundation for that article to be built upon. Hult041956 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More info?

I'd like to find more info on this subject. Does anyone have any suggested reading? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.211.110 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germany's case

I remember East Germany never quite believed it to be a successor state to the Third Reich. It regarded itself as a completely new "workers and farmers state" that is of German culture. West Germany did consider itself the latest successor government of the German nation. --JNZ (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PRC's succession of the ROC

I think it is still a contentious assertion that PRC has indeed succeeded the ROC. Given that and Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I think we should point that out instead of just treating it as a conclusive matter. --Pyl (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)