Talk:List of sovereign states in the 1950s

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US territories[edit]

I removed recent additions to the list of U.S. dependencies. Firstly, the Corn Islands—which were leased from Nicaragua (much like Guantanamo today), therefore not classified as a dependency—, and secondly the Colombian banks—I can't find any evidence to suggest that these formed insular areas or any type of external dependency, probably because the U.S. never actually controlled them. It's clear that a claim of sovereignty was made, but as what (i.e. as an insular area, or part of another insular area, or part of its sovereign territory) was probably never officiated. The same goes for the Swan Islands, but I haven't removed them yet. Anybody got a reference? (See here for more information). Night w (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The soveriegnty of the corn islands was leased in whole to the United States, similarly to how the Canal zone was leased in perpetuity or the new territories of hong kong. The united states did control the banks and operated lighthouses in the area. I can provide you with the treaty that ceded three of them in 1981 and a state department document that states they are officially claimed by the united states (ie a certificate was provided to the claimant). The swan islands were included in various censuses.XavierGreen (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this source [[1]] of the guano island act claims only bonded islands are considered to be under the jurisdiction of the united states of which roncador, quita sueno, Petrel islands, serranilla, serrana, swan all apply. The claims on Howland Baker and several other islands originate in the same exact process and you can find them on the same list though sometimes under differnt names (such as new nantucket for instance). XavierGreen (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the treaty that ceded Roncador and Serrano, and abandoned us claims to Quita Seuano. [[2]]. Negotiations over the islands were also conducted in 1928.XavierGreen (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can see here on pages 3 through 5 [[3]] that the corn islands, swan islands, roncador, quita sueno, and serrana, as well as several other territories were included in past sentences. Since the census only counts peoeple under us jurisdiction i think that is sufficent proof that they were actively claimed by the united states. But if you want more i can get more.As to what status they are there are only two unincorporated territories and incorporated, none of these areas were incorporated thus they were considered to be unincorporated territories. Insular area in the sense your thinking it as has no legal meaning.XavierGreen (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not contesting that a claim was made, I was contesting whether they were indeed considered dependencies. Do you have a source that explicitly states that? Otherwise, one could just as easily assume that they were claimed as part of Puerto Rico or something. As for the Corn Islands: Nicaraguan land that is leased from the government does not form an unincorporated dependent territory. Quote: "They never were a U.S. insular area"... Unless you have a source that explicitly states otherwise? Night w (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The soveriegnty was transfered to the US and thus it was an unincorporated territory. See article two of the treaty here [[4]].XavierGreen (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've left the Colombian banks on the list because of what was provided in this discussion, but are there any sources to say that these were ever actually administered by the U.S.? Otherwise, a footnote (like those on the Antarctic territories) should be attached stating that they were disputed. Night w (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the same issue with the Ryukyu Islands and the Bonin Islands (both classified here as "Occupied territories"). Were they legally considered unincorporated territories? We have a section for Occupied states, so should those be moved to there? Night w (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were legally considered to be UN trustees under international law. [[5]]XavierGreen (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The treaty didn't make them trustees exactly. It just said that Japan would have to allow the the islands to become trustees in the event that the United States proposed to put them under the trusteeship system. But they never did. In the meantime, Japan was to have "residual sovereignty" over the islands and they would the be under the "administration, legislation, and jurisdiction" of the United States. There was one administration for the Bonin and Volcano Islands (with a military governor and a local government for the residents) and another for the Ryukyu Islands. That was the situation until the Bonins were returned in 1968 and the Ryukyus were returned in 1972 Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So were they annexed as dependent territories or something else? What's the destinction between "Occupied states" and "Occupied territories" on these lists? Also, would I be correct, then, in stating that instead of "Volcano Islands" and "Bonin Islands" (currently listed individually) it should be Nanpō Islands, as the treaty states? I so much prefer your layout. How is the 1990s list coming? Night w (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's difficult to categorize. They weren't annexed, exactly, because the US recognized Japan's nebulous "residual sovereignty". But they weren't a part of Japan either. They were territories under U.S. administration. I don't know what you'd call them. Whatever the case, yes, Bonin and Volcano should probably be listed together. I think the US used those terms more often than they did "Nanpo Islands" but I think either way would work.
Oh, and the 1990s page is pretty much finished as of this morning. I'm going to do one last check over it and then merge the year pages. Converting the 1980s and 1970s should go relatively quickly after that. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier, on the Corn Islands: I can't preview that book for some reason. Does it say that it was considered an unincorporated territory? There's two problems with your first sentence: 1) the DOI source states "They never were a U.S. insular area, that is, under the sovereignty of the United States, but were leased from Nicaragua", so I don't see how you can make the claim that sovereignty was transferred (administrative authority, sure); and 2) regardless, to say "sovereignty was transferred, and thus it was an unincorporated territory" would be synthesis and would require some pretty substantial presumptions. Night w (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not sythisis all territories are unincorporated unless they have an organic act incorporating them. When a territory is annexed its defacto status is that it is unincorporated unless there is a law incorporating it.XavierGreen (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try this link if the other one isnt working [[6]]
Right, but this is a bit different as it wasn't annexed, it was leased. How is it different to Guantanamo Bay? Do you have a source that simply lists it as an unincorporated territory? Because I can't find one. I was able to find one for the Swan Islands, but not for the Corn Islands. If we can't find one, then I don't see how we can insist it was. Night w (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the earlier comparison of the Canal Zone and the Corn Islands is quite on base. The Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty explicitly gave the United States the right and power to exercise sovereignty in the Canal Zone, to the full exclusion of Panama, in perpetuity. The Bryan–Chamorro Treaty just gave the United States a 99 year renewable lease over the Corn Islands. I think a more apt comparison would be with Guantanamo Bay, which is leased under a similar treaty with Cuba and isn't regarded as a dependent territory. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the soveriegnty of guantanamo bay is still cuban only control was leased to the us. There have been quite a number of territories that had their soveriegnty leased for 99 years or sometimes even shorter. Wei Hai Wei and the majority of hong kong (New Territories) were 99 years leases as was the russian territory of port arthur,and the german territory of tsingtao as well as several other examples. If you read the treaty concerning the corn islands the territory in entirety was ceded to the us including soveriegnty. It was quite controversial in nicaragua at the time.XavierGreen (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference for the text of the treaty? Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ya page 190 of this [[7]]XavierGreen (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you paste me a direct quote? That link is only giving me a few very brief excerpts and none of them are from page 190. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heres article two of the treaty in its entirety.

Art. II. To enable the Government of the United States to protect the Panama Canal and the proprietary rights granted to the Government of the United States by the foregoing article, and also to enable the Government of the United States to take any measure necessary to the ends contemplated herein, the Government of Nicaragua hereby leases for a term of 99 years to the Government of the United States, the islands in the Caribbean Sea known as Great Corn Island and Little Corn Island; and the Government of Nicaragua further grants to the Government of the United States for a like period of 99 years the right to establish, operate, and maintain a naval base at such place on the territory of Nicaragua bordering upon the Gulf of Fonseca as the Government of the United States may select. The Government of the United States shall have the option of renewing for a further term of 99 years the above leases and grants upon the expiration of their respective terms, it being expressly agreed that the territory hereby leased and the naval base which may be maintained under the grant aforesaid shall be subject exclusively to the laws and sovereign authority of the United States during the terms of such lease and grant and of any renewal or renewals thereof.XavierGreen (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's pretty clear then, they were under U.S. sovereignty. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1940s and beyond[edit]

As the articles from 1950-present have been merged into articles by decade, should the others (1800-1949) be done the same? 86.136.148.106 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. It's just a matter of the time involved to merge everything together. I'm working on the 1940s right now but as decades go it's pretty complicated so it's taking a while. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The older you go the more complicated this will become, as territories often change between powers very rapidly the further back you go.XavierGreen (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had also begun to do the 1940s, but as you have got much further than me I'll allow you to carry on with that. But as XavierGreen says, it will be very tricky the further back we go. WilliamF1two (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic states[edit]

What happened to this edit? The Baltics were listed on this edit since they were actually de jure independent states under Soviet occupation. 99.242.170.90 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of sovereign states in the 1950s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of sovereign states in the 1950s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

China?[edit]

Why both Nationalist and Communist China? My understanding is that the ROC lost control of the mainland in '49. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia[edit]

Indonesia independence day is 17-Aug-1945. 182.2.38.157 (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_1950s&oldid=1208300027"