Talk:Government-in-exile/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Estonia

should the estonian one be in this list? the current government is widely recognized as legimate. besides the government in exile is far from exile. it is made up of a bunch of old man (not an insult) living in estonia who try to promote their idea of history. as they hold no popular support nor are they inexile and even more, the current government is fully recognized as they are not, do they really belong here with other respectable governments in exile? 82.131.52.61 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You must be referring to the pre-World War 2 one it seems. You may be right in that aspect, even though it does still exist. Not sure if it should be taken out altogether or placed somewhere else. That-Vela-Fella 14:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

i am referring to the one mentioned in the article as the current government in exile. though there still appears to be some oragnisation, officialy the power was handed over by heinrich mark in 1992. as there already is an article about the government in exile in the past governments section, i doubt the neccessity or actually even the relevancy of the entry. there is no actual artcile about it and the legitimacy and relevancy issue is handled on the kalev ots page although with a POV. i propose deleting the mention from this entry as it is confusing and almost irrelevant. 82.131.28.151 15:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam

The GFV seems like a legitimate G-I-E. If nobody objects I'll put this back:

• The Government of Free Vietnam is led by General Nguyen Khanh, former chief of state of South Vietnam.

In what way is it legit? It was formed in 1995 (not a true successor state) & isn't recognized by any nation. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have recently added this myself, and another user had removed it. If it claims to be the legitimate should it not be added to the list, or atleast added to a new section of disputed governments in exile. If it continues to operate, and consider itself the legit government, should it not be given some recognition in this article. I shall add it unless someone can provide good reason why it should be removed. --207.114.206.48 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a successor govt, like a deposed king or president, it is just a bunch of people. Nguyen Khanh was not deposed by the communists. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

By the article's own definition, the Government of Free Vietnam is a government-in-exile. The definition only requires that a GiE claim legitimacy, it does not require proof of legitimacy. Nor is there a requirement that the GiE is a "true successor state". It should be listed as such. LAWinans (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If they aren’t a true GiE as they were not a previously deposed government then how could the Provisional Government of Free India be a GiE as that was set up the Japanese to run India if they had taken it over. ThinkingTwice (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Government of Free Vietnam has been removed again. I will add them back to where they once were, or find the edit that removed them and undo that edit.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Biafra

Biafra, which had separated from Nigeria in the 1970s and then reunited after a destructive civil war, has indicated that it will support a government in exile in the United States. The announcement was made at some time last year, 2007, and there are founding documents at http://www.biafraland.com. LAWinans (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sealand

Principality_of_Sealand Currently has a government in exile if I am correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.130.92 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Crown Council of Ethiopia

The entry classes the Ethiopian GiE as a "past" government-in-exile. Inasmuch as the organization continues to exist and continues to claim legal status what was the basis for making it historical? I suggest shifting it to existing GiE. LAWinans (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

True, the website is still up & it has not died off. I'll bring it up to active. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Governments in Exile

Rather then removing the GiEs from the page entirely could we not add a section for GiE's woes proper existance is in dispute, for they do remain as non-state national "actors".207.114.206.48 (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think all governments in exile are, by definition, disputed. I think we should go with the phrase above the list "Governments in exile often have little or no recognition from other powers. Governments in exile currently include:"
  If an organisation claims it should control a territory AND calls itself a government in exile, that should be enough. An additional condition could be that the organisation did actually have control of the disputed territory some time in the past. A third condition could be that it currently doesn't control any territory. These criteria could separate governments in exile from sides in a civil war or revolutionary organisations, as well as disputed territories. Whether the Republic of China could be called a government in exile is debateable, given the One China Policy. It does claim to be the legitimate government of all China, but, looking at one of my possible conditions given above, does control some territory of what it calls China, and, technically speaking, would the Peoples Republic of China also be a GiE, given it's claim to Taiwan? It fails the condition of having once controlled the disputed territory, and, practically speaking, is in a different situation to the ROC, controlling, as it does, most of what both sides consider to be China. - Matthew238 (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I fail to follow Matthew238's reasoning. The One China Policy (as espoused by the United States) says that the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China. It doesn't say anything about Taiwan. See CRS Report to Congress http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/crs-report.htm The United States has never recognized the incorporation of Taiwan into Chinese territory. Moreover, the important consideration is "What was the status of Taiwan territory when the ROC moved its central government there as of Dec. 10, 1949?" The answer is: "Taiwan was sovereign Japanese territory until Japan renounced all its rights to Taiwan in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco, effective April 28, 1952." Hence, the ROC fits the definitions of "government in exile" very well: (1) A temporary government moved to or formed in a foreign land by exiles who hope to rule when their country is liberated. (2) A government established outside of its territorial base. (3) A political group that claims to be a country's legitimate government, but for various reasons is unable to exercise its legal power, and instead resides in a foreign country.

Matthew238 speaks of the "control" of territory, but that is not the issue. The issue is sovereignty. The world community does not consider the ROC on Taiwan to be a sovereign state because there are no international legal documents which can prove that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the ROC. In a nutshell, the ROC is a "government" without a country. It is not the legally recognized government of Taiwan. It is a government in exile, which is currently residing on Taiwanese soil. Taiwan is not Chinese territory, see http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/taiwannc.htm 114.45.20.96 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Should than the claimed continuation of the Government of South Vietnam, as the Government of Free Vietnam listed above, in this talk page be added? As it had territorial control, and considers ITSELF to be a government in exile? --207.114.206.48 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia

I do not think that the government of the Republic of Abkhazia should be listed here: it is not in exile since it sits in Abkhazia. By the way, it is already listed in the list of unrecognised nations. I suggest to remove it from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.204.16.1 (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is the Georgian provincial government which is in exile and therefore needs to stay on the list. It’s territory is under the control of the internationally unrecognized separatists government calling itself the Republic of Abkhazia. It is this separatist government which is on the list of unrecognised nations. ThinkingTwice (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Order of Malta

How is it possible that the Order of Malta is a government in exile (of the island of Malta) as they have diplomatic relations with Malta (please see the Wikipedia article about Order of Malta). It sounds impossible. --80.223.146.227 (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it's an oxymoron! Is there some source saying that the Order is making claims to be the legit government of Malta, even though it has diplomatic relations with the current administration on the Island? If there is none, then it should be removed from the article!That-Vela-Fella (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking into the matter some more, I still have not seen any evidence that the Order is claiming Malta, thus in exile from the island. As so far that could be seen today, it's content to continue to run it's affairs from it's residence within Rome. I will remove it from the list right away. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Split current governments in exile into two sub-lists

I have split the list of current GiE into two sections Created by deposed governments and Created by political organisations. There are other current and historical GiE which have been created by political organisations that have never been a legitimate authority in their claimed territory. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this was a fair compromise. However, to say that an organization has never had a legitimate authority over claimed territory, smacks of a POV statement, and wisely left out of your most recent edit. For this is for readers to decide on their own regarding the legitimacy of one group over another.

This also has me thinking, would active cessation groups such as the Lakota group also be listed in the political organisation heading? I am not saying I support or do not support their movement, however, would they not claim to be a legitimate government. Or is it int he case of the Lakota group that since they are already on the territory they claim to have authority of that they are thus not in exile.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your first point and I have changed the wording "legitimate government" to "actual governing authority". Regarding your second point, the Lakota Group are on their own land so they could not be a GiE as they aren’t in exile. They are however included in the list of active autonomist and secessionist movements under the US sub-section. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara Case

The term "Free Zone" is used by the Polisario leaders and their supporters. There is no UN official document which mentions the term "Free Zone". This area is called "Buffer zone" and controlled by Minurso to maintain the ceasefire.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Lakotah

I don't belive the republic of lakota is in exile but it defeniently does not have control of their claimed territory. Under what criteria would they fall? CK6569 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

They have been listed as a Secession movement, and as such can be found here and the following list. Furthmore they would not be listed as a government in exile, as they still remain on part of the land they claim to have sovereignty over. This is much like the discussion regarding why the Republic of Taiwan is not on this list. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

missing governments-in-exile

Government of Free Lebanon (based in Israel - see South Lebanon Army) Provisional Administration of South Ossetia (based in Georgia) Alinor (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The first one is a dead wikilink it seems, but the second one is ok and could be added in under the second heading. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

added link for the GFL. Alinor (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Even though it doesn't have it's own article still, it doesn't seem to be even an active gov-in-exile at this moment (it's own website hasn't even been updated for a while) and the aims it says in relation to Syria being in Lebanon have already come about (troop withdrawal). Will need more current info and I tried to find some, but it's very scarce at best. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's make up our minds please

Browsing the page's history, I found the following edit:

"Created by deposed governments: Removed Republic of Ambozonia as it never was the de jure government of the territory claimed, it would be best under list of seccation movements"

Here is a list of current entities in the list which were never de jure governments in their respective claimed territories: Cabinda, Chechenia, SADR, South Moluccas, Serbian Krajina.

As I understand it, this is a list of self-proclaimed governments functioning in exile, regardless of actual control. Please don't delete further entries documented as being governments in exile. Ladril (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

O. K., I made a new table which I hope makes things a bit more clear. Ladril (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Should Secession or Separatist Movements be added to this article? As, IMHO, that is what appears to be happening, slowly. And if that is not the case, what differs a government in Exile from that of a Secessionist organization that claims to be a government not in control of the territory which it claims? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't been looking at this to closely for a while, but now that I am, I too see it getting toward that same point. Before one knows it, there may even be a call for a merge to take place. This article should be based on 2 main things (as I see it):

1) Those former governments that was in power (like in Iran) that got deposed yet still function & claim to be the legit ruling body, and

2) Those that are presently recognized by other states as the legit government (like the SADR) & may (or may not) have some actual control over the said territory it represents.

Those would be the criteria best suited to use for what should be included or not (also with reliable sources obviously). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the problem is that based on the un-cited definition of the article it allows all those separatist/successionist groups to be allowed into this article. I agree with the two criteria that layout, but I would also like to modify the first by saying:

1)Those former governments that were in power that got deposed, or groups that claim to be a continuation of a historical government, or sub-government entity, that got deposed yet still claim to be legit ruling body, and act upon that claim through function, and

2)Those that are presently recognized by at least one widely recognized state as the legit government.

The reason why I deleted the territorial control information was, that if they control any of the territory they claim they are no longer in exile, just not fully in control of said territory. This is the reason why the Republic of China was removed from this list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems generally fine with me then on the overall wording, but some places are partly in control of the said exiled government (like the SADR), but got the HQ in a neighboring state. I guess those very few examples could just be noted on then, since most are not in that similar example.

I would go ahead then with those given guidelines/parameters put in the opening paragraph, thus making it quite clear as to what should/shouldn't be included. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone disagrees, I would propose that we have reached a Consensus, and will give until 12AUG2009 before this is implemented and to give time for comment or objection. Implementation shall include changes on the opening paragraph, which we should discuss, and removal of those self-descibed GiE that do not meet the new criteria.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I object to the definition. To me, the mere fact that a group sets up an entity that calls itself a government (as attested by reliable sources) is enough, regardless of international recognition. This does not automatically overlap with all seccesionist movements so I don't see a problem in there. Ladril (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Due to the objection the change will not be made. However, we still have a problem in so much that there are an increasing number of successionist movements that are being added to this article that I don't feel belongs here. We should come one a consensus on what differs a successionist movement and a government in exile, and using that consensus definition remove those that are successionist movements alone. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Two problematic entries come to mind: Palestine and SADR. Neither are really governments in exile (at least if you define exile as leaving the country). And BTW, Juarez's government of Mexico wasn't either, just like Afghanistan's Northern Alliance was never really exiled. I don't have a problem if somebody deletes those.

Aa for your concern, this list is still a lot smaller than List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, so I don't really see a danger for the moment. My view is that every government in exile reported as such by reliable sources must be reported as such, though. Moreover the definitions proposed would trim the list down to very few cases. Ladril (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The one for Palestine I can see as not really being in exile also, since they do run within it's said territory (in a matter of speaking). But the SADR, while it's in some control of it's land, are headquartered outside of it (based in Algeria). That being said, they are in exile & should remain in the article until such time if the leaders return back to the capital of the Western Sahara.

I should also mention that the proposed criteria earlier mentioned is still sound, but if it could be further improved/clarified upon, then so be it, thus it could then later be put at the start of the article. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What i',m concerned about is the loss of information that reform would entail. Ladril (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of exile from www.dictionary.com:

1. expulsion from one's native land by authoritative decree. 2. the fact or state of such expulsion: to live in exile. 3. a person banished from his or her native land. 4. prolonged separation from one's country or home, as by force of circumstances: wartime exile. 5. anyone separated from his or her country or home voluntarily or by force of circumstances.

So that leaves out Palestine, Republic of China and Afghanistan's Northern Alliance (I'm mentioning these just for future reference). It also leaves out Juarez's Government of Mexico, so I'll take it out. Ladril (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree re: the Juarez Government and your criterion of judging whether it constitutes a GIE or not-the fact that the French forces set-up the puppet Maximilian and ran the constitutional president out of Mexico City, i.e. exiling him and his cabinet from power speaks volumes. That one must be entirely exiled from the limits of ones country is also one that, I feel, doesn't hold strictly true-Juarez was always one step ahead of the French, and he was able to find refuge in the north and didn't have to cross the Rio Bravo only because of the actions of a few Chihuahuenses at that altercation in Chihuahua City. Had the invaders exerted their power over the entire country, then Juarez would have had to decamp Mexico completely...then, under this line of reasoning, if he had crossed the river at El Paso del Norte, he then (and only then) would have been considered exiled? Sorry, I subscribe to a broader definition: If one who is in power is in danger of having ones arse shot off and is forced to flee the area with his/her entire cabinet, this constitutes de-facto exile any way one slices it, and I don't think that Don Benito would personally have appreciated the nuances. This coupled with the fact that, in just about every text used in schools here in Mexico, from primaria through university level, his is referred to as a 'government-in-exile', with Maximilian the de-jure head-of-state.--Lyricmac (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This maybe the text in Mexico, (as supported by the current Mexican government) but I doubt that this is the present consensus view of the editors of this article. As you had said, even though the Juarez Govt. was driven from Mexico City, it did remain within the territorial confines of the country that it claimed to govern. This is also why there is a question as to whether SADR should be listed, as it to has control of some of the territory it claims; however, consensus has been for keeping it in.

Note; your comments show a POV against the Second Mexican Empire. Although I understand in political articles there maybe a tendancy to include POV into them, and I don't think any editor is 100% free from doing so in the past, let us attempt to keep such things to a minimum for Wikipedia's sake. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, I have no pov against the empire of Maximilian; he was personally a figure for whom I have quite a bit of sympathy, but it is needful to recognise that he was indeed a puppet of Napolean III, I guess a sort of sad, quixotic figure, but a puppet all the same.

If the SADR is to be included, then for consistancy's sake all such regimes should be included; to include one and exclude another for precisely the same reasons makes no sense at all. However, the last thing that Wiki needs is another edit war(which was the furthest thing from my mind). If the consensus is to omit the Juárez regime from the list then I'll go along, but pardon me if I point out the illogic of the rationale, nor does it change the verdict of history.--Lyricmac (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A small point. I too went through the Mexican education system, and I'm pretty sure I never read in a public textbook that Maximilian was "de jure" ruler of Mexico (things may have changed since Fox, but I doubt it). Most of my position on this matter has already been expressed by RightCowLeftCoast. Ladril (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya's government of Honduras

Should it be included here? Thoughts? Ladril (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He presently hasn't formed an alternative government operating out of a host country. If he does, then it should be included. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

United Mexican States

This listing has been added, removed, reverted, and removed again. So far two active editors have given reason as to why this listing does not meet the definitions set forth in this article. Rather than this becoming an editing war, let us reach a consensus as to this listing. Please keep personal attacks to a minimum to non existant level, and lets have a heated but civil debate on this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hi there. You also delisted these. There are sources for the Palestinian listing calling it a "parliament-in-exile" and "government-in-exile". What criteria are you using for this page, if not the descriptions provided in reliable sources? Tiamut^talk 11:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion above in this talk page, the definition we're using is the one at the beginning of the article itself. Just because a group is self-described doesn't make it so. I imagine the Palestinian Authority says it is so because it does not have all of its territory claimed, but was removed after discussion because it is on at least some of its territory that it claims (West Bank/Gaza Strip) and governs from within that territory.

SADR was removed because it has part of its claimed territory, however was readded due to to consensus objecting my removal because it's main organs of government remained outside said claimed territory. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if you read more about the State of Palestine, the Palestinian Authority (PNA), and the PLO, you may see some similarities between the Palestine situation and the SADR one in that regard. Much of the PLO remains in exile, many of its members could not attend the latest meetings of Fatah in the West Bank either on principle because the territories remain occupied, or because they would not be granted the travel permits to attend from Israel (who still decides who goes in and out of Palestinian territory). It is the PLO and not the PNA who represents Palestine internationally and the half of the Palestinian population who are refugees who do not get to vote in elections for the PNA. The PNA is an interim administrative body set up by the Oslo Accords to run local government in populated Palestinian centers.

Also, you might check out these links, because the designation "government-in-exile" or "parliament-in-exile" is not a self-description only :

• the PLO cited as an example of "government-in-exile" focused on the creation of a new and internationally recognized state by Stephanie Roemer (2008)
• Maya Rosenfeld (2004) calling the Executive Committee of the PLO "the equivalent of a government in exile"

What I am trying to say is that the situation of Palestine is a bit more complicated, due to its transitional nature. But the PLO is widely recognized as a government-in-exile, much of its membership remains in exile, the PNA runs things on the ground but it is a product of the peace process and was designed to be temporary. It was never intended to replace the PLO (the PLO signed the agreement with Israel that created the PNA as a temporary body to govern things until final status negotiations could be concluded. They never started and so things have been frozen in time since. The PNA continues to govern tiny areas of the territories, and the refugees and PLO membershp outside continues to wait to come back. The Palestinian right of return is an issue for final status negotiations.)

Anyway, I hope you'll reconsider, since I believe Palestine (or the PLO, who is anyway the official representative of the State of Palestine) should be listed, as it meets the criteria of which you speak. Tiamut^talk 17:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the references sources. However, I don't think the membership's location matters as much as the present seat of the organization. If the PNA does not equal the PLO and the PLO and it's supposed declared government of Palestine (not directly linked to the colonial government of the British Mandate) are not presently operating or claiming to operate within its said claimed territory, then I can see it being much more like the SADR. If this is the case and its organs of government are not within its claimed territory but operate elsewhere in whole, then I will say that the SADR comparison is even more similar. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If Palestine is going to be re-listed, it is my opinion that its entry should include the material presented by Tiamut as justification, so as not to confuse the general user. Ladril (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, well then I guess it does not qualify since the PLO has a headquarters in Ramallah (or did, at least when Arafat was alive and under siege at the Mukataa in 2002). It also had a headquarters at Orient House, but that was closed about a decade ago by Israel. I'm not sure if there is, or where, the overall international headquarters is located. If I find something definitive about the issue that states the PLO continues to operate primarily from outside, I'll let you know. If not, thanks for taking the time to discuss and review the sources and explain you position with civility and intelligence. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And Ladril, no worries. I'm not going to ask for its listing unless I'm sure it fits the current definition. Thanks for the vote of confidence in my sources though. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Manchukuo

According to the wikipage on the international recognition of kosovo, Manchukuo's government in exile has recognized kosovo. There is a link there to the exile-government's webpage. It stated that it was founded in 2004 and apparently they sell trinkets to fund the cause. Can't find the organization linked/listed anywhere else on Wikipedia, either here or on the Manchukuo page.84.176.165.37 (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there at least two secondary reliable sources to back its claim of existence? Are they actually operating as a government with at least some governing organs in existence with reliable sources for those as well? Are they attempting to regain a former territory? Are they attempting to secession of present territory to create a new territory?

I see they also link to a Qing Dynasty Restoration group. Are they a sister organization or a sub organization of this group?

I suppose if there is sufficient secondary reliable sources that this group can join that of those formed by political organizations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The fun part of this is Myself is an ethic Manchu, and this Manchukuo is just seems a big fat joke, but not funny. I checked their website yesterday, it seems like a comic website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.251.92.1 (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The so-called "Manchukuo Government-in-exile website" is simply just an anti-China website based in Japan. If you look at all their sponsors and partners, a large majority of them are Japanese Nationalist websites. Thus, it isn't to be taken very seriously as a "Government-in-exile". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tibet

Tibet needs to be added as a legit "governement in exile". The Dali Lama is their leader, and I think his governemnt is located in northern India. Tibet.com is their official site and specifically states "govt in exile". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.166.211 (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. However, expect to be challenged in the future by other editors. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Tibet is already mentioned in the article, just look harder, it's there. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania

I have deleted Lithuania from the list since as far as I know Lithuania did not establish government in exile, and its sovereignty was vested solely in its legations abroad. The previous claim was supported by a link to a web page stating that president Smetona fled the country together with government in exile. However the claim is obviously wrong as one can see from following sources: Vahur Made Estonian Government-in-Exile or James T. McHugh, James S. Pacy. Diplomats without a country: Baltic diplomacy, international law, and the... . --Mgar (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Coptic Pharaonic Republic

Why is this here? According to their own website, they are not trying to create a seperate state or overthrow hte current Egyptian government. They are looking for equal rights in Egypt. Seems more of a civil rights movement than a government-in-exile.CK6569 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking into this also, it was added in back on Dec. 11 by Ladril. After further reading, the site seems more of a forum for seeking freedom of a minority and not of a governmental body. It also has only a self-proclaimed leader who did the site from what I can tell, plus no further sources could be found to back this claim up. So for now I'll remove it until anyone can prove it to be put back. I also want to add it's listed at the List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, where it's also dubious as to being there.

On that note, I'll also be removing the Russian Democratic Federative Republic entry, since it was only a declaration that was done & never put into practice (since the 'assembly' that proclaimed it got over-ruled). Also no further sources were found to back it up that it ever existed. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ROC Dispute Resolution

The Medcab has been rejected, although Mafia is still trying to get a better result from the mediator at User_talk:Xavexgoem#Mediation_Request_for_Government_in_Exile_.5B.5B26.5D.5D.

So what is the next step?

BTW, I really appreciate all the work Ngchen has done for us all in writing up explanations for the medcap and rfc. Readin (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was apparent that the mediator thought we were trying to say "Chinese government" is government in exile without knowing the government in question was Republic of China. Also, Readin, please do not try to mislead people with statement such as "although Mafia is still trying to get a better result from the mediator at ". I was asking the mediator for a more specific result. It turned out the mediator simply thought we were talking about Chinese government is a government in exile. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We'll see what happens with MEDCAB. But speaking of which, has the dispute gone stale? Ngchen (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the mediator has indicated that he will get back to me in a couple of weeks. Mafia godfather (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Hamas

Please see this discussion. Alinor (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

ROC is also a rump state (Previous Section Name: "Also a rump state")

ROC section says, "In 1949, Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan and established Taipei City as the provisional capital of the Republic of China. Because of this, the Republic of China is also considered as a rump state."

First, why it is relevent to this article that someone thinks the ROC is a rump state?

Second, Liu Tao changed the wording from "may also be considered" to "is also considered" and put in the explanatory note that the ROC can't be both a government-in-exile and a rump state. If it can't be both, then the wording that says it is both doesn't make sense.

Third, in the section above "Republic of China list of countries", Liu Tao explains that the ROC is a rump state because it still controls Kinmen and Matsu. If that is the reasoning, then we shouldnt' say ROC is a rump state because the ROC retreated to Taiwan. We should be saying it might be called a rump state because it still controls Kinmen and Matsu (even though those are minor parts of its territory now and the government is located outside those islands). Readin (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. You changed the wording from 'is also considered' to 'may also be considered', not the other way around.

Why is it relevant is because it is relevant. If it is relevant in the article to make the distinction between a rump state and a government-in-exile, it would also be relevant to do the same for the RoC.

Yes, the fact that the RoC still controls Kinmen and Matsu makes the umambiguous fact that the RoC is a rump state, but the reason why I kept it ambiguous is because of the status of Taiwan. Many also considers Taiwan to be 'previous territory' of the RoC, which would also serve to justify that the RoC is a rump state. Of course there are also those who disagree with this point of view, which is why when I added the statement, there was an 'also' in the statement indicating that there are those who considers it as a government-in-exile and those who considers it as a rump state. A government-in-exile is not a rump state, and a rump state is not a government-in-exile. The article even specifically states

They are distinguished from rump states in the sense that a rump state still controls at least part of its previous territory; a government in exile, conversely, has lost all its territory.

It's either one or the other, it cannot be both. Those who considers it as a rump state considers it as a rump state, not as a government-in-exile and vice versa.

Even if the RoC Government is located outside Kinmen and Matsu, the definition of a rump state given by the article does not say anything about the location of the government, it just gives the distinction of the two that a rump state still controls some of its territory and a government-in-exile does not.

Also, the definition of a government-in-exile states that the government cannot exert its legal power, but everyone here would agree that the RoC has the power to exercise its legal power not only on Kinmen and Matsu, but on Taiwan as well. If I am correct, all of the other government-in-exiles listed in this article are subject to the laws of whatever nation they reside in. The RoC on the otherhand does not. It is not subject to 'Taiwan Laws', in fact it is the other way around; Taiwan is subject to RoC Laws. Liu Tao (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"They are distinguished from rump states in the sense that a rump state still controls at least part of its previous territory; a government in exile, conversely, has lost all its territory." That quote seems to be the core of your argument, but the article it comes from doesn't have a reliable source for it. Your argument that the ROC is not in exile because it has the ability to exercise its power in Taiwan is also not supported by the source we use for the definition of a government in exile. The source says "government-in-exile (a temporary government moved to or formed in a foreign land by exiles who hope to rule when their country is liberated)". The question of whether Taiwan is "foreign" to China is much debated and is part of the reason that for NPOV purposes say that the ROC is "not unabiguously" in exile. Readin (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Article it comes from? What are you talking about? The 'article it comes from' is the current article we are editing right now. Anyways, I found a bloody paper, hope you're happy now. Don't complain if it's not an internet source, pick your arse up off your chair and go to the library and pull it out of the archives. You can't deny legitimacy just because it's not on the internet.

Anyways, aye, you said that whether or not Taiwan is 'foreign' to China is debated, then that means either one of two things, the status of whether the RoC is a government-in-exile is also debated as well. If the RoC is not a government-in-exile, then it is a rump state, that is the only explanation; the RoC is either a government-in-exile or a rump state. For NPOV purposes both sides of the debate should be explained. Those are the guidelines set by the Wikimanual, go look it up yourself about NPOV. Those who considers that Taiwan is foreign to the RoC considers the RoC a government-in-exile, those who considers that Taiwan is not foreign to the RoC considers the RoC a rump state. Liu Tao (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ROC is not a rump state. It does not take a poli-sci major to figure this out. Rump state only applies if the "remnant" portion of the original larger country is still in fact LEGIT. For example, both Koreas are legit to international communities even though they do not recognize each other. Georgia is a legit country even it lost some control over its territories to Russian-backed independence of the two renegade states. ROC has been officially REPLACED by People's Republic of China and it is no longer legit. It is not even operating on the original territory for when it moved its capital from China to Taipei, Taipei at that point still belonged to Japan, and Japan has never transferred the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan to ROC. Whoever added rump state PLEASE provide some solid reference or learn definition of rump state. This is mother of OR.Mafia godfather (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn, not this again. PRC replacing ROC is disputed by the 23 countries. T-1000 (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

See UN Charter Article 18(2). The resolution passed with over 2/3 majority to recognize PRC as the rightful China and replaced ROC. The vote was 76 to 35, the resolution was passed by over 2/3 of those who were present and voting. Mafia godfather (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the 23 countries refuse to accept the resolution. The dispute still exists, and we can't take a side. T-1000 (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Which of the 23 states claim ROC is a rump state? Also, do you have any sources state ROC is a rump state?Mafia godfather (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The 23 countries that recognize the ROC as legitimate, of course. T-1000 (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rump state. We need credible sources on rump state. This is not a place for your fringe theories and OR. The 23 states do not mean anything because this issue is settled with a UN resolution. If the 23 states want to change what has been decided, have them get the GA to vote on it again. Wait, didnt they try 15 times and fail? OOPS. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The UN has it's own POV, disputed by the POV of the 23 countries. We can't take sides. T-1000 (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Mafia godfather, you should read about article about ROC, before you want to change the world as your wish. ROC is still a de facto superiority state(sorry for spelling mistake, should be sovereign state), and can be treat as a rump state, but no way as a gov in exile. SH9002 (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

SH9002, why dont you read discussion page for ROC and also re-read ROC page? I was everywhere, where are you?? And what the heck is "de facto superiority state"? Mafia godfather (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw, both Mafia and SH9002 are in violation of the 3RR rule, unless you both want to be banned, I'd suggest you both stop and talk about it first. T-1000 (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Do us a favor, report both of us. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I had read some discussion pages & articles, which you (User:Mafia godfather) had contributed, as you suggested[1]. What I can say is that you come to here for just one purpose　to manipulate Wikipedia as a propaganda tool in your favor　at any cost. You were only there where can serve for your political tasks. Sorry, there is nothing I can learn from your contributions. SH9002 (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I provided facts backed with facts, you provided this theory of "rump state" with no evidences backing you up. If you are to provide evidence, follow my foot steps as editors here demanded that i bear the burden of proof and I delivered accordingly. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Mafia godfather (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There is one article about rump state, if you have any question about this term, try to remove that article from Wikipedia first. That was not written by myself. The fact about Taiwan under　rule of ROC since 1945, see Treaty of Taipei & Wikisource of that Treaty[2]or[3]. You can read some book like 「去日本化」「再中國化」：戰後台灣文化重建（1945-1947）, they show the fact that ROC established Taiwan Province already in 1945. UN came into existence on 24 October 1945, ROC was the original member. Have you any evidences which can show that UN or U.S. or international wide had questioned about territorial sovereignty of ROC over Taiwan during the time between 1945 to 1949? If not that means Taiwan was already one part of ROC legally since 1945. SH9002 (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

SH9002, we are WAY WAY PAST this issue you just brought up if you only read the pages of discussions above, and I hate repeating when it is right there for you to read, because it kinda make you look bad. There were NO evidences of UN or U.S. or international wide had questioned about territorial sovereignty of ROC over Taiwan during the time between 1945 to 1949 because Taiwan was not owned by ROC and everyone knew it still belonged to Japan, even ROC knew. To make it short, since adoption of Hague Convention Laws of War and UN in 1945, all the matters on dispute settlement was to be done per international laws. International laws dictate that military occupation does not constitute sovereignty transfer even if the country that is occupying the territory is performing an act of reclaiming or if it is acting to prepare for an eventual transfer. The territory is still a part of the hostile country until formal peace is reached. In 1945, ROC took over Taiwan by General Order No. 1 issued by Allied Powers command after Japanese surrender, ROC occupied Taiwan on behalf of the Allied Powers. It was a military occupation, Taiwan still belonged to Japan. It was agreed by the Allies and Japan that Taiwan was to transfer to ROC per Japan per Instrument of Surrender after peace treaty, so nobody really cared if ROC was jumping the gun by starting to make Taiwan a province(an act not necessarily in conflict with international laws if it is what the occupying power wishes to do to better perform its peacekeeping duty). But something changed when Chinese civil war broke out. At end of 1949, PRC took control control of entire China except a few tiny islands offshore and ROC was forced to retreat to Taiwan, a Japanese territory and foreign to ROC. ROC government became government-in-exile, see the sources already provided on the article. During the discussion for SF Peace Treaty, the world had a long debate over how should Japan carry out its obligation of returning Taiwan to China since there is no one Chinese government with full capacity of China to give Taiwan to. At the end, they decided to have Japan just renounced the territorial sovereignty and have this issue be decided according to the Charter of UN. It implies that the territorial disposition of Taiwan would need to be decided by the people of Taiwan per principle of self determination in UN Charter Article 1. Despite the fact Treaty of Taipei stated Japan nationalized entire Taiwanese population to be ROC nationals and all properties of Japan on Taiwan to be controlled by ROC government on Taiwan, Treaty of Taipei mentioned NOTHING about Taiwan's territorial sovereignty. Why? Because Treaty of Taipei came into force AFTER SF peace Treaty, and Japan has already give up territorial sovereignty of Taiwan in SFPT, it was not Japan's place to give something they no longer own away. To this moment, ROC government is still operating on foreign soil. Mafia godfather (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

well, (1) what you said, "ROC occupied Taiwan on behalf of the Allied Powers. It was a military occupation" this is your WP:OR. It's not the fact. The article about　General Order No. 1says that "a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16 north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.", no evidence or reference can show that Chiang Kai-shek or ROC should follow the order of General Order No. 1. this Order is for Japanese surrender, not for ROC. These two descriptions has totally different meaning. (2)ROC was one part of Allied Powers, like US and UK etc. US, UK and ROC were partners, they corporated with each other. no evidence shows that they had no superior-subordinate relationship. (3) theoretically yes, the people of Taiwan in 1945 had choice to announce the independence according to the UN Charter. But there were no any evidence shows that the peoples on the Taiwan, Penghu islands proclaimed the independence officially as a new national or state before the ROC and Japan signed the Treaty of Taipei in 1952, that means most of them chose the right to be a citizen of ROC and they did. (4) the Treaty of Taipei also says that (A.) - ARTICLE II. It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.; (B.) - ....In regard to the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China signed this day, I have the honor to refer, on behalf of my Government, to the understanding reached between us that the terms of the present Treaty shall, in respect of the Republic of China, be applicable to all the territories which are now, or which may hereafter be, under the control of its Government...., this means clearly ROC holds the territory of Taiwan, Penghu islands. SH9002 (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)]

According to Hague IV Laws of War, Article 42, "Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "[4] May sound like an original research to you because you have never heard of it, but it is like elementary basics to those who are academics in the field of international politics and international laws. Japanese surrendered does not mark the end of hostility until there is a formal peace treaty. That is why SF peace treaty states "The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23. "(Article 1(a)) . From the date of surrender and the date of treaty comes into force, both sides are still at state of war and Japan basically given the right to carry out or make preparations to carry out demands of the allies as stated in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. The general order is in fact an order for Japanese to surrender, and the allied troops were by the order to accept those surrenders, the key here is not whether or not the order was to order ROC to accept the surrender, it is that ROC in fact did follow the order and accept the surrender of Japanese on Taiwan. Furthermore, ROC's acceptance of Japanese surrender would mean they have constituted a military occupation on Taiwan and need to abide by the Hague IV Laws of War as recognized by the world and Allied Powers. ROC and UK were indeed member states of the Allied Powers, but they have agreed to be directed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers for the sake of war effort and optimized war effect. There were various allied commanders that time and were chosen from various allied states. Right to self determine focuses on disposition of the territorial sovereignty, NOT the citizenship, one can be an American citizen walking on Japanese soil. Taiwanese and Penghu people have not given a chance from 1952 to now to exercise their right to determine the disposition of Taiwanese territorial sovereignty, but the fact they have been converted to ROC nationals per Article 10 of Treaty of Taipei does not have any bearings on the determination of Taiwanese territorial sovereignty, which is an exclusive province of Taiwanese people. ROC has outlawed referendum rights until Chen Shuibian pushed it through in 2003. ROC knew that it is different, so should you. Treaty of Taipei naturalization of Taiwanese people was not a choice for Taiwanese, it did not have to be, because Japan had every right to determine the citizenship of their nationals in foreign lands. And that is what they did, Taiwanese did not have a choice. Treaty of Taipei mentioned nothing on territorial sovereignty of Taiwan, and this is something brought up by ROC congress after the treaty has been signed and the diplomat that time Yeh Kung-Chao testified that it was not for Japanese to give for they have already renounced it per SFPT. That article you just cited simply said that Japan whatever in the treaty will apply to all of ROC territories and will be held true. But the treaty mentioned nothing about Japanese giving Taiwan to ROC. You understand? Mafia godfather (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, (1) Let us use your argument, If territorial sovereignty over Taiwan can not be transferred from Japan to ROC without peace treaty, so how can the territorial sovereignty over mainland china be transferred from ROC to PRC without any peace treaty? (2) Even if Taiwan is just occupied by ROC but not ROCs territory in your argument. Is there any international law that interdicts a state central government move to its occupied territory? (3) even if Kinmen and Matsu very tiny but they are still under control of ROC and ROC has the territories sovereignty over Kinmen and Matsu. so how can you say ROC is a government in exile? SH9002 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

To respond to number 1, the sovereignty disposition of Taiwan involved an international dispute of one independent state with another, hence the need for formal peace treaty to conclude such dispute, and especially when it comes to disposition of territorial sovereignty. In fact, I have not seen one valid territorial disposition that has been done without a peace treaty, it is the very reason why Japan's annexation of Manchuria was never deemed valid and Japan never had to give Manchuria back per SF peace Treaty for Manchuria was always a part of China's(note Cairo declaration mentioned Manchuria). PRC and ROC involved succession of state. A country had a change of sovereign government requires no peace treaty because the prevailing government effectively replaces and absorbs the predecessor. Back in pre-Napoleonic days, what PRC would probably do is travel to Taiwan and annihilate ROC remnants on Taiwan, but we are in post-UN world peace time now and that is not going to be proper, a GA resolution would suffice. I hope that made sense to you.
As for 2, there are no international laws forbids a state central government moving its capital to occupied territory. However, if the occupied territory is foreign, like Taiwan in this case, that makes the state making the move a government-in-exile. That is why you see so many documents and evidences stating ROC government is one. You have to understand, we are in a time when military annexation of lands is NOT permitted and NOT validated. China cannot take Manchuria base on the principle and claim Taiwan by going against the very same principle.
As for 3, Kingmen and Matsu are indeed within ROC control and are originally Chinese territories. I do not dispute that. However, since PRC replaced ROC as the rightful China, then that includes the legal sovereignty of Kingmen and Matsu. ROC lost legal rights over Kingmen and Matsu, so they are basically hogging onto territory that does not belong to them, again.
By the way, I suggest you take some time to review your No Man's Land argument on the Chinese wiki. You do know that the concept is used on "unoccupied" and "uninhabited" lands, right? Terra nullius allows sovereignty acquired through occupation, but stateless persons such as Taiwanese are considered to be sovereign and have rights to decide. In other words, Taiwan is not some kind of no man's island and cannot be occupied by sovereign states. For that reason, the most applicable provision that is SIMILAR to your argument on the Chinese wiki would be UN Charter CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES Article 73-74. Even so, that only justified right to occupy and administer and does not constitute sovereignty transfer. ROC did not comply to Article 73 to 74, and not only that, since adoption of the ROC constitition they have never included Taiwan into the national territory of ROC. And the ROC constitution states that it needs to be decided by the national assembly(now the power is transferred to the legislative yuan), and it never happened.Mafia godfather (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To (1), PRC is not a succession of ROC, it is independent from ROC on 1 Oct. 1949. At that time PRC even didn't get many territories of ROC, like Tibet, Xinjiang, Canton, Hainan, Kinmen, Matsu etc. If communist first occupied the whole territory of ROC, then announced as a new state, then that could be called as succession of ROC, but that was not the case. Don't foolish yourself & us. ROC exists from 1912 until now. The actual relationship between ROC & PRC is like father(ROC) & son(PRC), who are all alive since 1949. If ROC does not exist any more, where we get Taiwan problem, who governs Kinmen, Penghu, Matsu and Taiwan islands? If you guy says Taiwan is belong to no one, check the term terra nullius out. Terra nullius "is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty".
(New Jersey v. New York, 523 US 767 (1998) US Supreme Court，26 May 1998 says:
“Even as to terra nullius, like a volcanic island or territory abandoned by its former sovereign, a claimant by right as against all others has more to do than planting a flag or rearing a monument. Since the 19th century the most generous settled view has been that discovery accompanied by symbolic acts give no more than ‘an inchoate title, an option, as against other states, to consolidate the first steps by proceeding to effective occupation within a reasonable time.’8 I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 146 (4th ed.1990); see also 1 C. Hyde, International Law 329 (rev.2d ed.1945); 1 L. Oppenheim International Law §§222-223, pp. 439-441 (H. Lauterpacht 5th ed.1937); Hall A Treatise on International Law, at 102-103; 1 J. Moore, International Law 258 (1906); R. Phillimore, International Law 273 (2d ed. 1871); E. Vattel, Law of Nations, §208, p. 99 (J. Chitty 6th Am. ed. 1844). ”).
If you don't know the term, just check it in wikipedia, this is the easiest way. May be you don't want to know that, but using your explanation. Don't waist my time please. I know you had checked first out what i had written in the Chinese version of this talk page, then come to here wrote some words. I don't want to write the same thing twice. why you not just reply simply there, when you saw it? Are you unable directly to reply my arguments and questions? I think you are a lawyer, who very good at playing tricks.
To (2), (2.I.) a government-in-exile, because it has no any territory to govern or control, and is unable to exercise its legal power. At least Kinsmen, mantsu are ROC's territories from 1912 until now. There are also local governments of ROC on these 2 islands. ROC just moved its central government & more military force in 1949 to Taiwan. Well man can say to reinforce military administration of Allied Force on taiwan island, the because ROC has more force free at that time(but ROC had also local governments in active at that time in Kinmen, Matsu, Hainan etc., btw, check articles 1955 Taiwan Strait Crisis & 1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis, these were simply the fights between 2 states, ROC & PRC, for the territories). (2.II.)ok, like what you said Taiwan was Japanese territory from 1945 to April 1952. well, don't forget it means also that the so called "Taiwanese people" in Taiwan were Japanese, they all still had Japanese citizenships until Treaty of Taipei came into force. Btw, your argument also means implicitly that the so called 228 Incident was then some Japanese surrenders violently against military administration of Allied Power ignoring the fact that their country, Japan, surrendered unconditionally since 1945. (2.III.) Taiwan were just a terra nullius at moment the Treaty of San Francisco came into force on April 28, 1952. So ROC got it in terms of terra nullius at that moment total legally(even if most of ROC officers don't aware of that), just like Soviet Union got Sakhalin at the same moment in terms of terra nullius. In SFPT see: 2(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. 2(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905., the same text & same result.
To (3), Singapore is also a chinese territories(even if they are also called Singaporean or Singaporean people, this a common sense), but totally a another state. Do you want to tell Singapore is part of PRC? there are different chineses, like different asians. so what? you want to tell us that all asian belong to the same state? lol. So called "PRC replaced ROC as the rightful China" just exits in UN or some country, even USA does not say that. Even you, (User:Mafia godfather), know exactly that the term of China has multiple meanings. And every chinese people all over the world (not only citizen of PRC) all knows that today the socalled taiwanese culture in ROC has much more traditional chinese styles than the culture in PRC.
To (4) (4.I.) about you above called "No Man's Land" see the term of terra nullius, what i replied in part (1) above. (4.II.) There were no stateless taiwaneses. Don't lie to us. As said in part (2.II.) above, before SFPT came to inforce on April 28, 1952, Taiwan was territory of Japan, so that means in 1945 to April 1952, All the asian guys on taiwan and Penghu islands were either Japanese citizens or ROC citizens, all ROC citizens on both islands were foreigners by using your argument. But after SFPT came into force, because Japan had relinquished Taiwan & Penghu, all Japanese citizens on both became automatically foreigners on both islands. Only after Treaty of Taipei[5] came into force in Augest 1952, some citizens of Japan went back to Japan, some of them became citizenship of ROC(TOT, ARTICLE 10: "For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendants who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores)..."), after that these new citizens of ROC then again to be the Nationals on the taiwan & Penghu islands, because i said in part (2.III.) above, ROC got automatically taiwan & penghu islands in terms of terra nullius total legally, as SFPT came into force on April 28, 1952. Nowadays in 2010, all people in the ROC's actual territories have a citizenship. ):
--SH9002 (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(1)PRC IS a successor state of ROC. There is only one China now and that is the PRC. Prior to UN Resolution 2758, PRC was not a legitimate China and ROC was, until PRC replaced ROC and inherited all rights the ROC had as capacity of China. Are you saying that PRC was the legitimate China prior to the resolution? Succession of state has much to do with both de facto and de jure transition. As of now, ROC is indeed not the legitimate China. Again, to respond to your question in 1, succession of state need no peace treaty for it is from within and the two sides are NOT equal sovereigns. Once it is settled, one is a legitimate sovereign state and another is no longer in same capacity. It's basic knowledge. As for terra nullius, it is normally applied to territories that are uninhabited or abandoned by previous sovereign upon DISCOVERY(method of territorial sovereignty acquisition by exploration). Even the information you provided said so - "generous settled view has been that discovery...", also, see how it stated GENEROUS? That means the maximum of its extent acceptable as it is often not so genrously settled. This is why it is one of the LEAST used argument, but you wouldn't know judging by the way you cite it profusely as if you got the holy grail. When ROC first occupied Taiwan, Taiwan was inhabited and also owned by Japan, and there was no "discovery". When Japanese renounced the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan per SF Peace Treaty, the natural rights of Taiwanese inhabitants prevail and that is not ROC government. The right to self determine is a right to peoples guaranteed by the UN Charter. Territorial sovereignty acquisition by rule of terra nullius is hardly used because it is difficult to apply in modern world when the world is mostly inhabited, and that is why UN Charter Chapter 11 is there to make sure those of you would not use terra nullius as a way to acquire inhabited countries(lands). They were not stupid. Finally, in the supereme court case you have shown New Jersey v. New York, 523 US 767 (1998), there is a footnote on terra nullius. -" a contrary rule "would be an absolute infringement of the natural rights of men, and repugnant to the views of nature, which, having destined the whole earth to supply the wants of mankind in general, gives no nation a right to appropriate to itself a country, except for the purpose of making use of it, and not of hindering others from deriving advantage from it." E. Vattel, Law of Nations, §208, p. 99 (J. Chitty 6th Am. ed. 1844). This is very clear on terra nullius is to be applied when the land is not being used for the advantage of men. The author mentioned in the same book that inhabitants of the country shall have exclusive rights to the country(lands) and establish a nation, and since modern era prohibits legitimate territorial sovereignty acquisition by occupation, you should not argue in favor of it. You may not agree with peaceful resolution of international dispute and the human rights principle of the right to self determinations of all peoples, but this is the way we do things now. Which is why so many little countries popped up in last century. Please stop wasting our time if you have not even read through all the sources you cited, and most importantly, fully understood it within the context of present day laws.

(2)Again, no laws against government from moving its central government from its origin state to an occupied territory that is owned by a foreign state. However, the government located to the foreign territory would become governemnt-in-exile as it fits the definition of one. If ROC moved its central to Kingmen or Matsu, you might have an argument that ROC WAS a rump state from 1949 to 1971, but the fact is, ROC is not a rump state today after the UN resolution that formalized the succession of China. The right to determine of peoples are not related to their "citizenship" imposed by sovereign, it is a principle of human rights to give inhabitant of a country the exclusive right to determine the status of that country. Once Japanese renounced the rights of Taiwan's territorial sovereignty, the next in line to have decision over the country is the inhabitants of Taiwan, and the fact they have been naturalized by Japan in Treaty of Taipei make no difference whatsoever. In fact, between the time when SFPT comes into force and the time Treaty of Taipei comes into force, Japanese nationals OUTSIDE of Taiwan would have none of that exclusive right to determine Taiwan's future because they are NOT inhabitants of Taiwan. Good thing you brought up the Sakhalin islands, as of today, the world still does not recognize Russian's claim of ownership over the portion Japanese renounced. It is also Japan's official position that the portion they gave up belong to no one. Furthermore, some inhabitants of the disputed territory advocate the right to self determine. The thing is, it is a "right" so whether the inhabitants choose to exercise or not is entirely up to them. Difference? Taiwanese want to be on their own, and the folks on southern Skhalin and Kurile island want to be Russians. the dispute of Japan and Russia now is on something entirely different than Taiwan's case.

(3)Singapore is a Chinese territory?!?! Just because it has over 70% Chinese? What about Christmas island? Are you going to call that a Chinese territory, too? Just because a place has a lot of Chinese does not make it a Chinese territory. Your argument makes no sense. The Chinese "territory" I was spoken of is territories within Chinese territorial sovereignty, legally speaking, Kingmen and Matsu were indeed within Chinese territorial sovereignty from beginning to end and for the purpose of our discussion. What the heck are you smoking?

(4)Taiwanees are stateless, there is no such thing as a Taiwanese state, and ROC is not a state that owns Taiwan as it is a government ON Taiwan but not government OF Taiwan. Status of Taiwan as of now is still pending decision of Taiwanese inhabitants collectively on which direction will it go. It has nothing to do with the citizenship for what gives them the exclusive rights after Japan's renunciation of sovereignty rights is the fact they are inhabitants of Taiwan with natural exclusive rights. Terra nullius argument is not only invalid by nature and the customary application, it is not even considered by the ROC government at all. Mafia godfather (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To(1) No matter which abbreviations are used, there 2 states ROC & PRC, like North & Sourth Koera could also be called as Korea, so what. btw, if you don't what to really know about terms of terra nullius & it even was used many times after 1945 until now, it is your choice. I gave you already enough links & sources.
What UN thinks about ROC, that is his choice, inside UN different countries has their different point of views. UN is also not God.
To (2) well, what you argued those are about territorial disputes. It's very normal. Even today many or major chinese people say, okinawa or south china sea is territoris of PRC. There is nothing about legal territorial sovereignty issues.
To (3) every chinese or the guys knows about chinese language knows the word of "chinese territory" has multiple meanings, like "华人领地". Mafia godfather, I know that you don't want to reply such arguments in chinese, just because it's difficult to describe a chinese word into english very accurately, and vice versa, and you not want make the things clearly, but want to get it internationally confused.
To (4), lol, yes shanghai people are also stateless, there is no such shanghai state, cantonese stateless, there is no cantonese state, etc. Every body knows the Status of Okinawa is always dependent on the decision of the Okinawa inhabitants, California, Texas are the same etc., all the inhabitants in the USA or Canada have such right without any worry about the opinion of the central or federal government at all. No surprise, like ROC, these are all democratic states. Mafia godfather, you are very funny. --SH9002 (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To(1) The Koreas are both inside the UN and they did not replace ech other, and a succession of state for CHina has occurred. If you choose to ignore that fact, that is fine by me. And please don't come and tell me I do not know about terra nullius, it is one of my favorite subjects. I just spot it right away you did not even read the links you have cited and the contexts. It's hilarious.
UN is not God and member states of UN do have their own voices, but UN is also a superbody of sovereign states governed by the charter, the very instrument that member states including former state ROC have agreed to abide by. That is what makes its decisions important and binding. And a decision to replace ROC with PRC took an absolute majority of 2/3 of participants.a
To (2) We are talking about territorial sovereign isue here, and I would imagine you would be discussing something relevant to this and not if Chinatown in Los Angeles belong to PRC or not.
To (3) I do not care about which Chinese you come across who would think any Chinese community on this planet is a Chinese territory, I am only discussing about the legal territories within Chinese territorial sovereignty. I have responded your posts in Chinese wiki in Chinese already, I just refrained a bit because I did not want to embarrass you.
To (4), If Shanghai people want to go independent or Cantonese wanna do it, by all means. I do not care. The only issue now is Taiwan, and there is a reason why China wants the world to agree that Taiwan is a part of China and not Shanghai or Canton. Why? Because Taiwan is NOT a part of China. Do you see US asking the world to agree California or Texas is an inalienable part of US? YOU are funny.Mafia godfather (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To(1)　Oh, yes, North Koera + South Korea, we get 2 "Koera"s. Rupublic of China + People's Rupublic China, we get again 2 "China"s. lol.
(2) ok, UN is just organization with its rules. we know already. that it.
yes, there lots of territoral sovereignty issues. even mafia has its own.
(3) It's your choice.
(4) I don't care what you care. What US want to do, it's its decision. If every one knows taiwan is realy not a part of China, do you need to　proclaim it to the world again? funny --SH9002 (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(1)　There is a One China consensus of the world, but there is no One Korea consensus. If you really want to, you can support the two Chinas, PRC and ROC with their Kingmen and Matsu islands only. lol
(2) Are you suggesting that ROC should have gone against rules that it has agreed to?
Really? Are you going to comment on my screen name now just because you can't discuss things intellectually?
(3) I already did it, but you better start discussing things you KNOW and UNDERSTAND.
(4) I am not proclaiming to the world here, just stating a fact. This is, after all, an online ENCYCLOPEDIA. Mafia godfather (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(1)　"One China consensus"? really? You can check these articlesTwo Chinas, Special state-to-state relationsor [6].
(2) ROC is a member of that organaization(some one call it as UN) now? Btw, may be You don't want to know such a Consensus about Exclusive Economic Zone is a rule of the UN, even the member of it, USA helped shape some Convention and its subsequent revisions, and though it signed the 1994 Agreement on Implementation, it has not ratified the Convention[7]. lol, You really need more time to repeat education about the Law.
(3) It's not you business.
(4) well, did you forget that fact, that you called 'rightful One China', PRC, he doesn't think so. if taiwan is or not part of china is heavily disputed until nowadays internationally. oh, my god. you have a very bad memory. --SH9002 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(1)　How many of those ideas got the blessing of the world? How many? Zero.
(2) ROC was member of the UN and it is now replaced by the People's Republic of China. Taiwan being an independent entity still possess its given EEZ. ROC as government ON Taiwan that administers its sovereignty naturally needs to abide by it. See UN Charter "6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security."(Art 2. Sec 6) ROC government acting on behalf of Taiwan has participated in many international obligations, Taiwan is just not getting the benefits as a full fledged member. If you do not understand, research and fully understand the concept and think THOROUGHLY first to see how it can help your argument before you come and just post something as if you are convincing.
(3) Well, thats why I refused to continue with our discussion on the Chinese wiki side if you are going to start be vulgar.
(4) The fact you are a human does not mean your opinion is also fact. Just because People's Republic of China has replaced ROC as the rightful China does not mean all of the sudden is entitled to something ROC did NOT own. It has nothing to do with my memory. Mafia godfather (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(1)If this is really zero in count, where comes the this article about Special state-to-state relations. your math is really bad.
(2) ROC is sad not member of UN. UN has no relation with ROC. US didn't ratify the UN Convention about EEZ, means that some of UN's Charters/Conventions are disputed.
(3) No supperice, every one can check in this talk page, not only one dislike your Mafia godfather's Behavior.
(4) well, look, you are vulgar again. Even US does not acknowledge　what you said here, US just doesn't want to make trouble, check Shanghai Communique.
--SH9002 (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(1)You do know that special state-to-state relationship is just a political doctrine, right?
(2) By international laws, countries do not need to abide by and obligated to follow customary international laws created by new treaties if they have not signed and ratified. It does not mean the law is not effective, it still is to the world, but the country its self within its territorial sovereignty would not have to follow it. once US has signed and ratified the UNCLOS it will become a part of US laws and needs to be abide by. Same deal with International Criminal Court, US also has not ratified it. Now, lets compare that to the arguments we have discussed on treaties not signed or not ratified. 1. ROC did not sign SFPT so they are not obliged to agree to Japan's renunciation of Taiwan in SFPT Article 2. True, ROC does not have to agree to SFPT's decision on Taiwan, but does it matter? Taiwan was NOT ROC's national territory prior to Japan's renunciation so the only party that can dispute this is really... Japan. Kind of like you rent an apartment and you are being asked to leave when the landlord sold the place, does it matter if you disagree? Not much. SFPT was signed and ratified by all parties relevant, and the legal effect is binding and final. 2. ROC did not agree to UN Resolution 2758 and thus it can continue to exist as an independent state. A couple of things. The resolution that replaced ROC with PRC was UN resolution 2758 and in the resolution it clearly stated that the resolution was done on the basis of the UN Charter, basically the fundamental rule that even ROC signed and ratified to abide by and the succession of state is not to be legally disputed. If Taiwan was a Chinese territory like Shanghai, PRC could very well march in and kill every ROC there was and this would have been an internal issue that the UN could not intervene without good reason. But luckily Taiwan was not a part of China so the ROC get to survive on Taiwan and the US and the world had goodlegal basis to provide Taiwan protection. Be mindful of what examples you are using as rebuttal.

(4) How am I vulgar with my analogy? Also, Shanghai communique is something the US and China discussed a great deal about before signing. US purposely made sure the language did not indicate they agree and recognize China's language. If you do not believe me, check out the transcript between Nixon/Kissinger and Zhou Enlai. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I spent most of time on articles in chinese version & different articles in different language versions. I come to wikipedia not to fight with you (User:Mafia godfather) just only for the issues about ROC/Taiwan or gov in exile. I don't think any one has right to order me to edit which article & you are not the God or BIG Brother here. thanks SH9002 (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

BY all means, provide some evidences from whichever language you have. You are not the only one who can understand Chinese here. If your evidences meet the evidence quality criteria of wikipedia, show them, do not just edit without backing yourself up.Mafia godfather (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry, If you want to know which languages version i have worked, just check it by yourself. If you are not able to use the functionalities of Wikipedia, just try to learn it by yourself. That is my duty to do any thing for you.　SH9002 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked, nothing good and recognize by international academia. Also, if you would do us all a favor and read the two links I give you and respond above, I would very much appreciated, because we dont have a lot of time to repeat the same thing here for you.Mafia godfather (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually Mafia, SH9002 has made very good points. I will spread them out out again for you to read and answer. These points from SH9002 must be answered and addressed:

(1) If territorial sovereignty over taiwan can not be transferred from Japan to ROC without peace treaty, so how can the territorial sovereignty over mainland china be transferred from ROC to PRC without any peace treaty?
(2) Even if Taiwan is just occupied by ROC but not ROCs territory in your argument. Is there any international law that interdicts a state central government move to its occupied territory?
(3) even if Kinmen and Matsu very tiny but they are still under control of ROC and ROC has the territories sovereignty over Kinmen and Matsu. so how can you say ROC is a government in exile? quote(SH9002)

SH9002's points are valid. If all the current territories occupied by the PRC are not under their 'sovereignty', then that means that they are foreign, if they are foreign, then that would effectively make the PRC just as much of a government-in-exile as the RoC is. Liu Tao (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To respond to number 1, the sovereignty disposition of Taiwan involved an international dispute of one independent state with another, hence the need for formal peace treaty to conclude such dispute, and especially when it comes to disposition of territorial sovereignty. In fact, I have not seen one valid territorial disposition that has been done without a peace treaty, it is the very reason why Japan's annexation of Manchuria was never deemed valid and Japan never had to give Manchuria back per SF peace Treaty for Manchuria was always a part of China's(note Cairo declaration mentioned Manchuria). PRC and ROC involved succession of state. A country had a change of sovereign government requires no peace treaty because the prevailing government effectively replaces and absorbs the predecessor. Back in pre-Napoleonic days, what PRC would probably do is travel to Taiwan and annihilate ROC remnants on Taiwan, but we are in post-UN world peace time now and that is not going to be proper, a GA resolution would suffice. I hope that made sense to you.
As for 2, there are no international laws forbids a state central government moving its capital to occupied territory. However, if the occupied territory is foreign, like Taiwan in this case, that makes the state making the move a government-in-exile. That is why you see so many documents and evidences stating ROC government is one. You have to understand, we are in a time when military annexation of lands is NOT permitted and NOT validated. China cannot take Manchuria base on the principle and claim Taiwan by going against the very same principle.
As for 3, Kingmen and Matsu are indeed within ROC control and are originally Chinese territories. I do not dispute that. However, since PRC replaced ROC as the rightful China, then that includes the legal sovereignty of Kingmen and Matsu. ROC lost legal rights over Kingmen and Matsu, so they are basically hogging onto territory that does not belong to them, again.Mafia godfather (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to stop our arguments for the moment. We are going off track and besides the point. We are NOT debating whether or not if the RoC is a Government-in-Exile or a rump state, what we are debating is whether or not if the view that the RoC is a rump state is of major existence. Mafia, all you have been doing is to provide evidence to show your POV that the RoC is a GiE, you have not done however is to disprove the fact that the RoC is still in many other's POV as a rump state. Unless you can somehow prove that the interpretation of the RoC as a rump state is not 'mainstream' or 'significant', wikipedia's NPOV policy states that we should mention BOTH sides of the viewpoints. What I have been arguing is that the RoC is viewed by many as a rump state, NOT that the RoC is a rump state and should be treated as such. As I have said, based on the definition of a rump state and the political dispute over the status of Taiwan, those who views Taiwan as a part of the RoC views the RoC as a rump state and vice versa for GiE. In your POV, Taiwan's 'sovereignty' is not that of the RoC, therefore the RoC is in 'foreign' territory and is a GiE. Well, in the opposing viewpoint, for those who does not view that Taiwan is not a part of the RoC, for whatever reason (there are many reasons) views that the RoC is a rump state. It is unfair to say that just because very little people refers to the RoC as specifically as a rump state that nobody views it as such. Given the fact that the term 'rump state' is not a very popular term or known to the public, added in with the current mainstream confusion amongst the english speaking world of what is 'Taiwan' and and what is the 'Republic of China', it makes the association of the RoC with the term 'rump state' in the English world rare. What is 'rump state'? 'Rump state' is just a term used for describing a particular object, and that particular object's definition fits the description and viewpoint many people have for the 'Republic of China'. The RoC may not be specifically referred to as a rump state, but the way it is described and viewed fits the definition of a 'rump state'. Before I 'discovered' the term 'rump state', I did not refer to it as such for obvious reasons. However, I described the RoC as a state who has lost all of its territory besides the current Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu which are still under its jurisdiction. I did not have a term for states that has lost territory, nor did I know one existed. Now I do know that a term for states that has lost territory exists and now I use it because it is what I am describing. There is a fine line between talking about something you don't have a name for and saying something is not a particular thing. If you want, fine, I won't refer to the RoC as a rump state, I'll replace that last sentence with 'Because of this, the Republic of China is also not considered by many as a Government-in-Exile'. Liu Tao (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If ROC is a rump state is as you said, a fcat or POV that is 'mainstream' or 'significant', there should be some references that you can pull to back it. So far, none. If that is the case, then it disproves its self and does not have the protection of NPOV since it is fringe and maybe even OR.Mafia godfather (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

None? I've already given you my explanations, the fact that the status of Taiwan is disputed makes what the RoC is (rump state or GiE) disputed as well. Those who believe that Taiwan is a part of the RoC considers the RoC as a rump state, those who does not believe that Taiwan is a part of the RoC considers the RoC as a government-in-exile. You want a source? There are tons of them, any source that that says that the RoC lost mainland and moved its capital to Taipei in 1949 is a source indicating that the RoC is a rump state. The RoC may not have been directly referred to as a rump state, but it is described as one. This is not Original Research, this is language and common sense. As I have said, I will change it to 'Because of this, the Republic of China is also not considered by many as a Government-in-Exile' if needs be. It gives the same meanings. If the RoC is not a GiE, then it is a rump state. Simple as that, it's one or the other. That is the dispute, that's where the POV and NPOV issues come in. Both sides of the dispute must either be listed. Liu Tao (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

your explanation? An indication? Sounds awfully a lot like original research to me.Mafia godfather (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I second Liu Tao's point, although I do see where Mafia godfather is coming from. It's not original research to make a purely straightforward deduction or calculation that's self-evident to an average person. So if we take the POV that the ROC lost most of its original territory, but continues to exist in Taiwan, Penghu, etc. then the fact that it's a rump state is self-evident based on the definition of rump state. BTW, ironically, Mafia godfather seems to have engaged in a bit of original research himself in the thread above with regard to the UN, diplomatic recogntion, and so forth that in my view is not as self-evident as this "rump state" question. Ngchen (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My alleged "original research" was fully backed by available evidences. What is ironic is to see how vivid is the double standard present here when something fringe and original such as "ROC is a rump state" with no credible evidences or citation available can be simply be regarded as "self-evident". At any rate, since the description says it is not unambiguosly GiE, I will let the rump state POV be included per NPOV. Mafia godfather (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The references are 23 states that recognize the ROC as legitimate. The existence of their POV proves that the ROC's status is disputed. T-1000 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Did they say ROC is a rump state or do they simply recognize ROC as a legitimate China which fits the definition of government-in-exile as well-- "A government in exile is a political group that claims to be a country's LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT, but for various reasons is unable to exercise its legal power, and instead resides in a foreign country or foreign area".Mafia godfather (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

They said ROC/Taiwan is a country, which means ROC cannot be GIE in their POV. T-1000 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Progressive Party Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen

The chairman of the DPP (main opposition party) in Taiwan has recently described the ROC as a "government-in-exile. Taipei Times: Tsai blasted for ‘government-in-exile’ remark, Taiwan News: DPP supports Tsai statement that ROC is government in exile Readin (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• ROC is a republic country, not a Monarchy. this sovereign state doesn't belong to any party or person. DDP is just a party of ROC, any opinions from its members don't affect the state issue without legislative process of the congress. SH9002 (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the T-1000 doctrine, SH9002, as long as there is a dispute, there is a dispute. haha Just to teach you a bit about ROC laws, since you said that "this sovereign state doesn't belong to any party or person". Article 2 of ROC constitution: The sovereignty of the Republic of China shall reside in the whole body of citizens. [8] DPP is a political party and Tsai is a ROC citizen, and the rights of ROC reside in her party and her as well. But you said it, unless the congress do anything, what she said wont count. Just like unless the world do something about reversing PRC's succession of ROC, whatever ROC says does not count. ROC is a goner since 1971.Mafia godfather (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Under the NPOV policy, we provide all notable points of view. In a democracy, the views of the leadership of the larges opposition party and a party that has recently held the presidency are notable. Readin (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to kind of side with SH9002 on one part here, even though Tsai spoke against ROC's favor, wouldn't a political advocate or political organization of the entity-in-dispute(ROC) be a biased source(either green or blue)? Does it matter what she says unless we are to view ROC is GiE as a non-fact when it is. I mean, the sources e have are all unbiased 3rd party sources with solid reference.Mafia godfather (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Does not matter, NPOV policy states that all notable POV should be noted, in this case both the fact that the RoC is disputed as either a government-in-exile or Rump State should also be noted. As I have said many times before, those who considers that Taiwan is not part of the RoC considers the RoC a government-in-exile, those who do consider Taiwan part of the RoC considers the RoC a rump state. Because the fact that there is a dispute on the sovereignty of Taiwan, the dispute naturally affects directly exactly what the RoC is. It does not matter what 'international law' says, there is no 'international governing body'. The UN is nothing but a loose coalition of nations. One can say that because the RoC is no longer a member of the UN, UN laws and charters no longer applies to the RoC. These arguments can go forever, in the the point of this discussion is still the same, the disputed sovereignty of Taiwan in the end also leads to the dispution of the current state of the RoCLiu Tao (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)