Talk:Dependent territory

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Uninhabited islands and Antarctic claims

Uninhabited islands are not dependent territories. To be a dependent territory, the entity needs to function like a country, i.e. it should have three key elements: a defined territory, a permanent population, and a functioning local government. Uninhabited islands only have a defined territory and nothing else, they are not dependent territories. It doesn't matter what their administering states call them, they are merely "overseas territories" directly administered by their central governments.

All Antarctic claims are also uninhabited and therefore they are not dependent territories too.

I propose the removal of the following 24 territories and territorial claims from the list of dependent territories:

Uninhabited islands

Antarctic claims

2001:8003:9100:2C01:ACFE:7B23:904F:A674 (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get these definitions? Did you just make them up? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been defined by the United Nations. All dependent territories should function like countries. A dependent territory should have a permanent population. Its local people should have the option to break away from their parent state and create their own independent sovereign state via self-determination.

Uninhabited islands cannot become independent sovereign states. Hence, they are not dependent territories.

Source:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514 120.16.127.229 (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly in that source does it say that? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the whole source talks about that. The United Nations use the term "non-self-governing territories" instead of dependent territories, dependent areas, or dependencies to describe these country-like political entities, but they are the same thing.

Obviously, uninhabited islands are not dependencies since they don't function like countries, they are just remote external territories located far away from the mainland. They don't "depend" on their mainland administration, they are "administered" by their mainland administration. 120.16.127.229 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same thing: you are mistaken. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the differences? Could you elaborate on details? 120.16.127.229 (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colonies are not dependent territories. They are just different things and you are conflating them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all dependent territories have been classified as colonies by the United Nations. There are only two ways to avoid being classified as colonies:

1. Independence (i.e. becoming a sovereign State).

2. Fully incorporated with your parent state (i.e. becoming a normal administrative division). 120.16.48.249 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this more made-up stuff on your part? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the part that says "all dependent territories should function like countries" or anything even like that and the part about uninhabited islands. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@user:120.16.127.229, What you are saying is just your interpretation of what the UN writes or thinks. Even if it is obvious, it is still your opinion (primary source) and is therefore not a secondary source, and therefore should not be used a such. I also have doubts about your interpretation anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And even if that were true, this is not UN-pedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Azores, the Canary Islands, and Madeira

I just want to point out that the Azores, the Canary Islands, and Madeira have been classified as dependent territories by Collins World Atlas. 203.174.173.6 (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an authority. Legally, under both domestic and international law, the territories have been incorporated into Spain and Portugal respectively. TFD (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any differences between them and the likes of Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Norfolk island. 120.16.66.177 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see the difference clearly. The Canary Islands are an autonomous region of Spain, and the Asores and Madeiras are autonomous regions of Portugal, while Christmas, Cocos and Norfolk are external dependent territories of Australia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any differences between them and Tasmania. TFD (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is more the inclusion of Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Norfolk island. They don't meet any of the listed criteria for entities similar to dependent territories and are included on the ad hoc basis the that Australia acquired them after its establishment - a criterion which, if applied neutrally and consistently, would make for a very long article indeed, and which must be discarded immediately as the actual basis. The real reason they are included is of course that they are commonly included in similar lists. Kominscarm (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're included here because "debate remains as to whether the external territories are integral parts of Australia", which is likely related to why they're on similar lists. If the debate was settled they'd be in the first list. The list excludes entities that appear on similar lists, although they are mentioned in prose (eg. French Guiana, Palmyra Atoll, Jan Mayen). CMD (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence they have been incorporated into Australia. In recent years, Australia has placed refugees on these islands, under the premise that because they were not part of Australia, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees did not apply.

Incorporation into a state means that its laws apply in full, which apparently is not the case here, at least in the opinion of the Australian government. TFD (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT No evidence? I will show you the evidence. Below is a link from the Australian Government explaining the legal status of its external territories:

https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=ncet/communication/report/chapter2.pdf

According to the source, Australia has full sovereign powers over all of the External Territories and those territories are all Australian territory in the same sense as any part of the Australian mainland. However, Norfolk Island is a self-governing territory like the mainland territories of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, while all of the other External Territories are non self-governing.

Norfolk, Christmas, Cocos, Ashmore, Cartier and the Coral Sea Islands are all administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Services. The Australian Antarctic Territory and Heard and McDonald Islands are administered by the Department of the Environment and Heritage.

In other words, all seven external territories are considered integral parts of Australia. They are administered by either of the two above-mentioned deparments under the Australian federal government. 58.152.63.206 (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At one time, the UK had full sovereign powers over all of Australia and it was British property in the same sense as any part of the UK. That does not mean that Australia was ever part of the UK.

Can you name any dependent territories where another state does not have full sovereign powers over it? That is after all the definition of a dependency.

Note the source says that these territories are legally referred to as "External Territories", i.e., not part of Australia. And the discussion is about what Australian laws apply to these territories, which would not be an issue say with the Northern Territory or Tasmania. TFD (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the source doesn't say the "External Territories" are not part of Australia either. It says: "the Norfolk Island is a self-governing territory like the mainland territories of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, while all of the other External Territories are non self-governing."

I think that statement clearly states that Norfolk Island has the same political status as the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory while the other External Territories are administered directly by the Australian Federal Government. Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands each has a local government (Shire of Christmas Island and Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands), but they have no special rights compared to other shires on mainland Australia while the other External Territories are uninhabited islands. All of them are considered integral parts of Australia. 1.159.150.219 (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between integral and non-integral territories of Australia? What would be different if these territories were non-integral? TFD (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-integral territories are territories administered separately and independently from their national government. Some examples include Aruba, Bermuda, Greenland, Hong Kong, New Caledonia, Puerto Rico, and Tokelau. Another way to distinguish them is whether these territories have been viewed as separate entities from their parent state by the international community. Some key indicators include separate membership within an international political organisation or having its own national sports teams in international competitions. For example, Greenland is a member of the Nordic Council, New Caledonia is a member of the Pacific Islands Forum, Hong Kong has its own national football team, and Puerto Rico has its own national basketball team. On the other hand, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Norfolk Island have none of these privileges. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:BD:FEFB:7CF:88AE (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen that definition before and ask for a source. Scotland has its own teams, Quebec has limited international personality, while Puerto Rico is administered de facto in the same way as any U.S. state.

Dependency is just the modern politically correct term applied to territories that were once considered colonies. There is a huge range of degrees of self-government, but sovereignty always remains with the administering state. For example, the UK imposed direct rule on the Turks and Caicos in 2009. TFD (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Island participates at the Commonwealth Games and Pacific Games separately from Australia. I T B F 📢 14:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formal request

As per the discussions above, I would like to request the following 31 entities to be removed from our article as they do not meet the definition of a dependent territory:

Associated states

Integral part of a sovereign state

Military bases

Uninhabited islands

Territorial claims

Antarctic claims

2001:8003:9100:2C01:BD:FEFB:7CF:88AE (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While they may not meet your definition of dependencies, they meet definitions in reliable sources and more importantly are described as dependencies in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entities with no unique autonomy

I guess these entities should be included in this list, and I will explain why.

1. ISO 3166-2 code

According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), codes assigned to countries play a fundamental role in different contexts, both in international trade and global communication. ISO creates international standards to ensure standardization. Having unique and consistent codes for countries facilitates communication between companies, governments and organizations around the world, eliminating ambiguity and errors that could occur with the use of different country names or abbreviations. For example, for databases and IT systems, representing countries by alphanumeric codes is much more efficient and less error-prone than by full names. Additionally, country codes help organize and categorize data in a more practical and structured way.

2. Country calling code

Each country or territory has a unique numeric code (for example, metropolitan France is +33, and French Guiana, which is a French overseas department is +594). This code is necessary for international calls to be correctly routed and directed to the destination country, because without calling codes, it would be impossible to distinguish between telephone numbers from different countries. A number may be the same in several countries (for example, 1234567890 may be a valid number in France and elsewhere), but the international dialing code ensures that the call goes to the correct country.

3. Country code top-level domain

Country code top-level domains (TLDs), such as ".no" for Norway or ".sj" for Svalbard and Jan Mayen, are important for several reasons, especially when it comes to distinguishing between countries and territories and their respective identities on the internet. For example, the country code TLD helps identify the geographic origin of a website or online resource. For example, a domain like "example.co.nl" indicates that the site is associated with the Netherlands, while "example.bq" suggests a connection with BES islands. This helps users and search engines understand the location of a service or business. In addition, many users prefer to interact with local content. For example, French Guiana may trust more a website with a ".gf" domain because he expects the content to be in French and relevant to French Guiana. Country code TLDs help you create an immediate connection with your local audience.

Resuming, although these entities have no unique autonomy, they signed these treaties, which are considered international, then at the same time, it is possible to consider that these entities are considered dependent territories even without autonomy. 2804:14C:4386:8267:F9EF:107A:97C6:AA6A (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entities with non-recognized unique autonomy

I propose the inclusion of these entities, such as Kurdistan of Iraq; Wa State of Myanmar; Gaza Strip of Palestine; Galmudug and Puntland of Somalia; Rojava of Syria; and Zanzibar of Tanzania. The reason for including these entities is because they in fact have a greater degree of autonomy, with its self-governments, juridictions and regulations although this is not as recognized internationally. For example, Wa State has its own political system, administrative divisions, army and constitution (Wa State Basic Law). Then, it's possible that these entities should be considered as dependent territories. 2804:14C:4386:8267:F9EF:107A:97C6:AA6A (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many nations have sub-national governments and Canadian provinces even have the right to conduct their own foreign affairs in areas of provincial jurisdiction. TFD (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]