Talk:List of United Nations member states

The member states of this list are supposed to transcend regimes. For example, according to the list, Afghanistan joined in 1946. However, the current Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan was only formed in 2002. The date for "China's" membership is in 1945. Therefore, it would be inapproprate to use the title "People's Republic of China" as done in the last edit. The PRC joined in 1971, not 1945. In the eyes of the UN, the PRC replaced the ROC as the governing authority of China. It was a regime change, not a change of country.

Also, the statement that "all but one (Republic of China) are still members today" is inaccurate. Countries have changed their names. According to the list, the Democratic Republic of the Congo joined in 1960. But wasn't this regime and country established only in 1997? What about Zaire? Yugoslavia? Those countries have disappeared. Jiang 06:50 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The part about China's joining dates was pure a mistake. Not intentional. --Menchi 06:59 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

see [[1]]. Jiang 07:01 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Concerning the SAR,s I didnt realise it was talking about the period before 1971. Sorry for that. --Huaiwei 14:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is the section "The Seat of China" on the bottom in fear of accusations of Sinocentrism? It was placed above the "Observers" section because of logical transition. "The Seat of China" is directly related to the topics, namely, Member States. Whereas as the Vatican City city is not a member. It is an observer. It is not even listed on the webpage of the official UN member states list.--Menchi 06:42 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh...I changed it because the paragraph about the Vatican starts with "Additionally..." which I saw as a logical transition. If you put "additionally..." after explaining how a state is not a member, it doesnt make sense...or at least what I thought so. I don't care either way if you see things differently. Jiang 06:50 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The reason I reverse the edit is that The list is of UN member states and the UN lists :Macedonia as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

User:Smith03

What about a list of NON-members of the UN?

Switzerland for one...

Switzerland is a member of UN since 2002. What countries would your list of non-members of the UN include? Taiwan? Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? Sealand? Atlantium? Clearly you see that UN is not perfect but is unfortunately the best common denominator for different political views on this planet that we've got. So I oppose for making list of non-members under the name that would imply it to be "list of countries that could or should be in the UN but are not". --Romanm 13:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it is a serious point of dispute and there are efforts underway to secure membership, we should mention it. So far, Republic of China and Western Sahara seem to be the only strong cases, but there is also Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as an edge case. AFIAK nobody supports Sealand or Atlantium, and they haven't even applied. --Delirium 01:47, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I second the request for Non-members of the UN. --Quasipalm 15:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

See list of sovereign states - in addition to the 191 UN member states, there are:

• Vatican City (a permanent UN observer)
• Republic of China (discussed under United Nations member states #Seat of China)
• 6 de-facto independent countries (Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria)
• 2 entities recognized by many countries but not de-facto independent (Palestine (also a UN observer) and Western Sahara) - Palestine has an advanced statute at the UN level. Western Sahara isn't member of the UN and hasn't the statute of observer either. I think it's a great mistake to join these 2 cases. Palestine is a decolonization process. Western Sahara is a separatism issue.
• various other disputed territories (including Jubaland, Puntland (Somalia), Cabinda (Angola), Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro), Kurdistan (Iraq) and Kurdistan (Turkey))

and micronations. But whether something is a "state" or not gets rather contentious as you move towards the end of the list. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am going to redirect the China link pointing to China to People's Republic of China since in a UN context this is what it refers to 80.5.115.14 17:34, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure if the reason China is linked to is because it represents 'the seat of China' but I still believe with the note of explanation at the bottom being sufficient, the link ought to link to People's Republic of China - feel free to change it if you disagree

I don't think it should be: the listing says since 1945, and the People's Republic of China in particular has not been a member since 1945, so pointing to that page would be inaccurate. --Delirium 01:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Since virtually all countries are members of the UN, why not make a map of non-members instead which would easily identify them? The Current map is visually useless except for Antarctica as a non-member being visible at a glance. --Kvasir 07:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree--Kurtle (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed:

For the Saharawi people of Western Sahara and the Taiwanese of the Republic of China, there is no member state of the United Nations that represents them. Ostensibly, they are represented in all UN organs by Morocco and the People's Republic of China, respectively. With the admission of Switzerland in September of 2002, all free countries other than the Vatican have joined the United Nations General Assembly as member states.

I'm not entirely informed on the situation in Western Sahara (has there been any formal attempts at membership or has Morrocco claimed responsibility?), but the phrase "Taiwanese of the Republic of China" is already by itself silly. Saying that there's "no member state of the United Nations" to represent the Taiwanese is POV. The People's Republic of China claims to represent them, the ROC claims the PRC does not. This paragraph makes two POV contradictory statements (i.e., the Taiwanese are not represented v. the PRC represents them). It further asserts that the ROC is not "free". Western Sahara may need some mention here, but the rest is crap. --Jiang 02:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While it is necessary to keep former members separate, I think notes pertaining to current members should be placed next to the listing rather than in a separate section--Jiang 14:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>Response: I appreciate your input, Jiang. I wondered about whether or not I should have the notes at the bottom or the top. Two things made me go with bottom:

1. It would be cumbersome to have the extensive explanations inside the list, and generally unattractive.
2. Since former members are, by definition, no longer members, it isn't imperative to put them in the list of current members (as you noted).

The only way to rectify the first reservation would be to cut out information, but I think said information is valuable (or else I wouldn't have included it in the first place!) If you can think of a reasonable way to circumvent these issues, I'll be on board, but barring that, the list as it's presented seems most readable and best to me. Some users will come here just wanting to have the names of the countries, and that's the first thing they see - explanatory notes will simply bog them down. Do you think we should have separate headings for "Naming Conventions", "Former Members", and "Notes"? Justin (koavf) 20:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to have to cross-reference each entry in the list. If putting the text next to the entries will get in the way, then maybe try footnoting so that we would know whether an entry has an associated note in the first place. People have no idea whether a current country has a note in the section below when they read the list (if they are interested...). Yes, this would mean separating "Naming" and "Notes" from "Former Members"--Jiang 10:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>Fixed? I've changed things around a bit. "Former Members" has been consolidated, and is more manageable. I've made anchors for all "Former Members" and "Naming Conventions and Notes" issues in the main list (really the only "notes" are for Cyprus and Indonesia - all others are name changes or obscure naming convetions). Is this better? Justin (koavf) 22:40, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Some honest feedback: It's extremely frustrating for the reader to keep on go between the Notes section and the main body back and forth, back and forth. This separation of information is very annoying when reading. It'd be much better to just stick the relevant notes next to the country names or somewhere very very close (like the next line, using a "sub-bullet"). --Menchi 01:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've changed a lot - while keeping all the valuble info in and not overcrowding things or making people constantly jump about the page down to notes. Hope it looks alright to everyone--Kurtle (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I was not sure if yall noticed, but the Holy See was placed in the members category. Can I remove it, since it is a Pernament Observer? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is East Timor alphabetised under Timor? The article specifically says that countries are alphabetised under the English name, and the English name for East Timor is East Timor. Timor (without the East part) is an island, containing both East Timor and a non-sovereign part of Indonesia. — JIP | Talk 11:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, have never understood why the majority of people concerned on Wikipedia insist that "East Timor" be its English name. Timor-Leste is exactly the same kind of name that Côte d'Ivoire is - definitely non-English, but the country requested that its native name be used in all languages. — ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, depending on the point of view, it can either be named East Timor and alphabetised under East, or named Timor-Leste and alphabetised under Timor. The mixed situation I was talking about (named East Timor and alphabetised under Timor) is a blatant breach of the article's own rules. — JIP | Talk 09:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

To label Taiwan as a region not represented in the UN is POV. According to the UN, Taiwan is represented through the People's Republic of China since it is part of China and China's sole representative at the UN is the PRC (per resolution 2758). Official UN publications label Taiwan as "Taiwan Province of China" [2] [3] and has gone as far as telling NGOs to do the same [4]. During the SARS epidemic, WHA officials were only allowed to set foot in Taiwan after gaining the permission of the PRC, and the ROC govt was effectively denied access to the WHA. While Resolution 2758 made no statement regarding the status of the Republic of China, the actions of the UN, such as denying the ROC membership or observership, are in effect treating it as illegitimate.

It is the map that needs changing. --Jiang 06:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

===>My apologies Clearly, you are correct. I'll change the map tonight if no one else does. Justin (koavf) 14:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the UN has not taken a stance regarding whether or not Taiwan is part of China. Saying that it is is POV. In fact, the PRC government has never had jurisdiction over the island of Taiwan. The issue of what to call Taiwan and how international bodies should interact with Taiwan has been severely influenced by the PRC's insistence on the One-China Policy and their clout in world affairs. In effect, however, Taiwan is a fully-functioning autonomous political and economic body separate from the PRC. - August 14, 2007

Russia is listed as having joined the UN in 1991 despite the fact it is more or less considered the sucessor state of the USSR. To the UN's point of view, the USSR died as a state in 1991. Then's there's the inconsistency that some of the former Soviet Republics joined the UN in 1945, but Russia joined in 1991. China is listed as having joined the UN in 1945 and is listed with the PRC flag. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that to the eyes of the UN, the state known as the Republic of China died in 1971 and its sucessor state is the PRC. Then using that logic, the current China as the UN knows it joined the UN in 1971. If you go to the UN plaza in San Francisco's Civic Center and look at its list of countries joining the UN followed by the date, it would seem to support that point of view with regards to China. It lists that the Republic of China joined in 1945 and that the People's Republic of China joined in 1971. Allentchang 15:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Makes sense to me Go for it. -Justin (koavf), talk 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

the reference cited is from the official UN website, here. If we go by regime changes, then the vast majority of dates on the list will have to be changed. In the eyes of the UN, the PRC is the successor state of the ROC. The "China" on the list joined only once - in 1945. It was the regime that changed - like how we dont put 2003 as the join date for Iraq because Baghdad was invaded, and the Iraqi UN ambassador simply left town to be replaced by another from the governing council. New memberships and expulsions are handled by the Security Council, not the General Assembly.

who authorized the stone slab in SF? On the flip side, we can cite Resolution 2758, which the General Assembly "Decides restore to the People's Republic of China all its rights...and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek" as if the PRC were already a member....--Jiang 16:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Regime changes vs. successor states The PRC and ROC weren't regime changes, like when the president of Mauritania was overthrown. The PRC and ROC have different constitutions, governmental institutions, and are currently co-existing rival governments of overlapping, non-identical territories. Their situation is more complex and nuanced than merely a regime change, as they are two separate states, rather than a reconstitution of the same state. -Justin (koavf), talk 16:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

what you say is true, but the UN doesnt think so. Otherwise, but would still be members like the two Koreas. The ROC has all the characteristics and qualifications of a state including a fully functional government, foreign ministry, military, constitution, etc. but the UN will not allow it to (re)join because it is deemed a "province of China". We must stick to the official UN designations on this list. The argument you present is very valid, but only for having separate entries at list of sovereign states, and not here.--Jiang 03:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Granted I may not have made myself clear - certainly, we need to follow and describe the understanding of the United Nations when editing this list. All I'm saying is, for instance, when Suharto overthrew Sukarno, it's not like Indonesia left and then re-joined the UN. (Although they voluntarily suspended their membership.) Regime changes are inherently different than the dissolution or reconstitution of states. This is all I'm saying. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ireland does not take its seat under the name "Republic of Ireland," see official UN site. Taking its seat under anything other than Ireland would violate Article 4 Bunreacht na hÉireann (Irish Constitution), which states: "The name of the state is Éire, or in the English language, Ireland." I am thus editing the article accordingly. Iolar Iontach 01:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph says this in part:

By definition, only sovereign states can be members of the United Nations General Assembly [...]

But is this so? If India was a founder member back in 1945 (presumably being offered a place as it had previously been a member of the League of Nations), then there's clearly an anomaly here, if not an outright contradiction; India did not become a sovereign state until two years later!
Silverhelm 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

The Ukranian and Byelorussian (now Belarus) SSRs were part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics when they became members of the UN; they weren't independent until the 1990s.Rt66lt 13:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I deliberately ignored the example of those two states as I believe that Soviet legal theory claimed that Union Republics were sovereign in their own right, which complicates my argument unnecessarily. Silverhelm 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

[5]: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgement of the Organization, are willing and able to carry out these obligations. The admission of any such State to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." Article 4, Chapter 2, United Nations Charter

There seems to be no mention that a state has to be "sovereign", as long as the General Assembly and the Security Council approves (as demonstrated by the examples of British India, Ukranian SSR and Byelorussian SSR). Of course, it is very highly unlikely a non-sovereign state will be able to join the UN in the future. Maybe a better wording would be:

In principle, only sovereign states can be members of the United Nations General Assembly [...]

Chanheigeorge 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this (perhaps as a separate paragraph):

Today only fully sovereign states are admitted as members of the United Nations. However, three of the founding members (India, Belarus, and the Ukraine) were not independent at the time of its creation.

Silverhelm 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

I've rewritten the intro accordingly. Chanheigeorge 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good show! Silverhelm 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Actually, at the time of the UN's formation, there were FOUR non-independent states amongst the founding members. In addition to India, Ukraine, Byelorussia/Belarus, there was also the Philippines, which did not gain its independence from the USA until July 4, 1946, almost a year after the UN's formation. An important correction, methinks. nephos9 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call! I'd never thought about the Philippines before. Silverhelm 13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your information. The correction has been made. Chanheigeorge 00:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Montenegro has declared independance, should the article be edited to change the Sebrbia and Montenegro seat to just the Serbia seat? Ixistant 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Not yet Montenegro is just free to legally pursue the process of separation now. It's not sovereign yet. Once it is, it will have to apply for its own seat at the UN and other international forums. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 01:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not yet Serbia and Montenegro still exists as a country, despite Montenegrin independence, because Serbia hasn't officially declared independence to claim rights as a successor state yet. Dr. Manos 18:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that Serbia has declared "independence" and claim rights as a successor state, should we make the change from "Serbia and Montenegro" to "Serbia" now or wait until the UN officially recognized the dissolution of the union? Chanheigeorge 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that the Serbian parliament declared "sovereignty", rather than "independence". Anyway, the article should be amended to mention that Serbia's status at the UN is pending. I see that someone has already jumped the gun and changed the article, which is incorrect in my opinion; it is the General Assembly that determines membership, not Wikipedia! Silverhelm 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

I've changed the member name back to "Serbia and Montenegro" for now, but also add in the footnotes that "Pending UN's apporval, it is expected that" Serbia will retain SCG's seat and Montenegro will be admitted as a new member. Chanheigeorge 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's great! No doubt it'll have to be changed again very soon, but it's good to have it accurate until then. Silverhelm 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Not great at all as it is just plain wrong. Serbia legally inherited the state union of Serbia-Montenegro and therefore does not need to formally establish international ties with states and bodies it previously had ties with. As a legal successor it inherited the seat at the UN as well and here is the proof - Serbian flag now flying at the UN http://www.b92.net/galerija/pics/2006/06/6095011094488354a07c00462620758.jpg . Avala 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Serbia and Montenegro may have agreed between themselves that Serbia would be the legal successor of the state union, but that is hardly automatically binding on anyone else! After all, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia considered itself to be the successor of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, but no-one else agreed.

Obviously if Serbia's flag is now being flown at the UN then that suggests that they've been accepted as the state union's successor, but it's only circumstantial evidence; for example, what if the UN's protocol department just made an assumption? By way of counter-evidence, the UN's website still lists "Serbia and Montenegro" as a member.

I grant you it would make sense for Serbia to be accepted as the state union's successor, but an encyclopaedia article should describe how things are, not how we think they should be. If you can provide something more authoritative than a picture of a flag, then you'll have proven your case. Until then, it's (at best) open to question. Silverhelm 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

I doubt that Boris Tadić and Kofi Annan met there and later went out to raise the flag for fun. Avala 08:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Have Serbia officially filed an application or a notification to the UN for the name change? If not, until the time being it's Serbia's own business that it has taken over Serbia and Montenegro's seat. From the UN perspective the official and/or procedural requirements for name change have not yet been fulfilled. — Instantnood 11:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes and not only UN but to every government in the world that Serbia has diplomatic connections with. This letter also included a notice that every embassy of Serbia and Montenegro has been renamed to the Embassy of Serbia. Avala 13:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Serbia can unilaterally rename all its embassies and other missions, but it's not valid until officially accepted by these foreign governments. (Any of these foreign governments can, technically speaking, disagrees with the independence of B and continues to recognise A and B, though such possibility for the case of Serbia may not exist.) Even if the Serbian government has requested the UN to change its name, it has to be approved by the UN to be procedurally valid. — Instantnood 17:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The first, dark green map should be updated. —Nightstallion (?) 01:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's just struck me that the article name does not reflect the fact that this is a list.

I would therefore propose that the article be moved, perhaps to List of member states of the United Nations.

Comments? Silverhelm 12:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

===>Neither here nor there I personally have no strong feelings either way, but I'd like to point out that this isn't strictly a list, and attemptes to explain in addition to list. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But the bulk of the article is either the list proper or explanatory footnotes. Right now the whole article makes up 19 screen lengths in my browser, 14 of which are the list and footnotes (and a further 2 of which are explanatory paragraphs relating to the list's content).

I'd draw a parallel with a non-fiction book, such as a biography of Stalin. There may well be 40 pages of footnotes, a 10-page bibliography, and 20 pages of indexes, but the core of the book is still that biography. And the core of this article is a list, with some additional material explaining why certain things are or are not in that list. Silverhelm 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

I concur with moving it. —Nightstallion (?) 11:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands currently says this in the footnotes on former members:

Yugoslavia joined the UN as an original member on October 24, 1945, represented by the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. It remained as a member until November 10, 2000, even though the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had already completely dissolved by 1992.

This doesn't really make any sense -- how could a country continue to be a UN member for 8 years after it had ceased to exist? My understanding is this: Serbia and Montenegro delcared the formation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992, and claimed to be the successor of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which would mean that the FRY would assume all the international organization memberships and treaty obligations of the SFRY (as Russia had done for the defunct USSR earlier in the year). The UN and most other states, however, did not recognize the FRY as a successor to the SFRY, and the FRY refused to reapply for membership until 2000; thus stalemate. I'm not sure what it would mean exactly to say that the SFRY somehow remained a UN member during that period. --Jfruh (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I agree it's not exactly clear what it wants to say (I wrote the paragraph). But in the UN's books, Yugoslavia (SFRY) continues to be a UN member after 1992, since UN never recognizes a successor state. The UN webpage said:

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was an original Member of the United Nations, the Charter having been signed on its behalf on 26 June 1945 and ratified 19 October 1945, until its dissolution following the establishment and subsequent admission as new members of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

So my understanding is, when FRY was admitted, SFRY ceased to be a member, yet FRY did not succeed SFRY. I also looked at the countries that joined immediately before and after FRY: Tuvalu, said to be the 189th member [6], and Switzerland, said to be the 190th member [7]. So it appears that when FRY joined the UN, SFRY "left" the UN, maintaining the number of members at 189. Chanheigeorge 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the real situation was this (if anybody who's familiar with Yugoslavia history can confirm this...):

Yugoslavia was represented by SFRY in the UN until 1992. After the dissolution of SFRY and the formation of FRY in 1992, Yugoslavia was represented by FRY until 2000. After the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, FRY "re-applied" for UN membership, replacing the "old" Yugoslavia. The reason for this was that the UN does not want to recognize FRY as the successor to SFRY. Unlike Russia succeeding USSR, which was supported by the other former Soviet Republics, the other Yugoslav Republics were not going to support FRY succeeding SFRY. The UN wanted the situation to be similar to Czechoslovakia, where all individual states are equal and none of them retained the original UN seat. Of course, as you said, "stalemate" occured before 2000 as FRY refused to re-apply. So the citation from the UN webpage is basically some sort of revisionist history, which seems to suggest that SFRY continued to exist until FRY joined the UN. (Notice that no specific date was given for the dissolution of SFRY). Chanheigeorge 06:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, with a twist. Here are the facts. The FRY was formed by Serbia and Montenegro in April 1992 [8]. The UN decided in Sept 1992 to not let the FRY succeed the SFRY in the UN [9]. This was the policy until Slobodan Milošević was defeated by Vojislav Koštunica in Oct 2000. The FRY was readmitted to the UN the following month. My feeling is that from Sept 92 to Nov 2000, the SFRY was kept alive as a legal fiction to explain the above. I can interfere this based on the fact the SFRY embassy was still open [10] until the NATO bombing started in March 1999 [11]. Of course after the 2000 Yugoslav elections, all of the BS was dropped and everyone was happy. In short, the end of Yugoslavia is a confusing topic I have been reading about for the last decade. - Thanks, Hoshie 13:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Chanheigeorge should stop insisting that SFRY existed up to 1 November 2000, he has no sources which support that exact date. If certain countries with veto power sustained the legal fiction of the SFRY, that information should be noted, without giving any certain date. Where is a single piece of document which supports the theory that SFRY existed up to 1 Nov 2000? It would mean that the Security Council voted on that, like in the case of removing the Republic of China in favour of PRC. United Nations Security Council resolution 757 (adopted May 30, 1992) placed FR Yugoslavia under international sanctions.^[1], which included a ban on its participation in international contests and cultural events.^[2] What it means? That the SFRY should have placed FRY under sanctions, and the FRY considered itself the successor!? We should note that the European Communities and the United States also placed FRY (hijacking the term Yugoslavia) and that all nations should have approached the FRY as the FRY (Serbia and Montenegro), naturally if complying to the UN SC and UN GA official documents.

1. ^ "United Nations Security Council Resolution 757 (Implementing Trade Embargo on Yugoslavia)". University of Minnesota Human Rights Center. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/peace/docs/scres757.html. Retrieved 2009-10-19. 
2. ^ The resolution called upon all UN member states to:

   Take the necessary steps to prevent the participation in sporting events on their territory of persons or groups representing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro);

   —Paragraph 8(b)

   Suspend scientific and technical cooperation and cultural exchanges and visits involving persons or groups officially sponsored by or representing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)

   —Paragraph 8(c)

   .

Bugoslav (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The before mentioned resolution (date 30 May 1992) clearly "Noting that the claim by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations has not been generally accepted,". -- Bugoslav (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your sources and edits. I don't think I've written anything that claims that SFRY still existed beyond 1992. My intention is to write that "Yugoslavia" (referring to SFRY) remained on the official roster of UN members until 1 November 2000, even though it did not exist anymore. I'll try to make the point clear. Also I don't see any problem using "Yugoslavia" as the section header, since the UN used that name for the member state, and it's made clear throughout the article that "Yugoslavia" = SFRY. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you know that FRY existed, and that the official roster clearly indicated that "Yugoslavia" meant the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This is why the article should also for the sake of clarity use the notation Yugoslavia (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) as the header of the section dedicated to SFRY. We do not know when Yugoslavia was unlisted from the roster and the notion that it was removed on 1 Nov 2000 is unsourced and harmful.

Why the article doesn't mention the United Nations Security Council resolution No. 757, adopted on May 30th, 1992, which clearly noted that ... the claim by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations has not been generally accepted.

Bugoslav (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On 20 July 2006 User:Koavf delinked most dates. As the United Nations uses British dates, I consider using unlinked American dates too American-centric. If there is no significant objection, I will switch all dates to linked British dates per WP:DATE.--Jusjih 04:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to do that. I've restored the links to the dates. This way, you can choose whatever date format you prefer to see in "my preferences". See Help:Preferences#Date_format and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)#Dates. Chanheigeorge 06:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have nevertheless anglicized all dates in this article.--Jusjih 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoth the article:

Some international organizations, non-governmental organizations, or entities whose statehood/sovereignty has not been precisely defined, such as ... the Palestinian National Authority (called simply "Palestine" in UN literature) ... have a similar observer status but not as "non-member states."''

If I'm remembering correctly, there was some sort of Palestinian representation at the UN before the PNA was created in the early '90s. I imagine that it was the PLO that was the body sending representation then, at least, and the PLO and PNA are not the same thing -- Hamas, which currently runs the PNA legislature, is not part of the PLO, for instance. Does anyone know precisely what body currently sends the Palestinian delegation to the UN? Is it the PLO or the PNA or something else (perhaps the notional "State of Palestine"?) --Jfruh (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Palestinian National Authority is a United Nations General Assembly observer.--Jusjih 16:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's the PLO. See here [12] Chanheigeorge 01:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither Czech Republic nor Slovakia is credited as an original member, which is correct, because back in 1945 there was only country: Czechoslovakia. On the other hand, why should Russia, Ukraine and Belarus be credited as original members while e.g. Estonia, Kazakhstan and Armenia are NOT? Back in 1945, there was only one USSR! We should therefore credit either all the USSR's successor states (as original members) or none. Jancikotuc 14:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The credit of original memberships is given by the UN not Wikipedia. See the UN's List of members for an explanation. FYI the UN allowed Ukraine and Belarus membership in 1945 even though they were part of the USSR as a balancing act of the western allies (France, UK, US) vs. the eastern ally (USSR) of WWII (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 15:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object to my formatting this list in a wikitable? -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

•  Holy See (sovereignty over the territory of the  Vatican City): became a UN Permanent Observer State on 6 April 1964, and by resolution A/RES/58/314 on 1 July 2004, gained all the rights of full membership except votin

According to this from the UN Observers article, the Holy See has a special relation to the UN. Therefore I sugest that the Vatican should be Yellow and not grey on the UN map . User:Allard Posted: 28 January 2007 14:00 CET

The dates in the table are formatted as a string: so when ordered it is not in date order, but alphanumeric. Will endeavour to correct this today, but might take a while. Dutpar (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Done and working! Dutpar (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have moved "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to T in the alphabetical listing as per UN policy. [13] --Scotchorama (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to follow UN policy, then "Republic of Korea" is under R, "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is under D, and we should use official names for many other countries, like "United Republic of Tanzania" instead of "Tanzania". We should have some consistency of whether to follow it or not. On the other hand, I don't see why we have to definitely follow UN policy. This is not an official UN page. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We need consistency. I believe that if we use official UN names, we should list them under UN order ( and I'd be ready to change names/work on the order. Or else we should use Wikipedia names. In that case, it should read Republic of Macedonia. But we should consistently either use one or the other. If we use Wikipedia policy, we should change Timor Leste to East Timor per Wikipedia policy, etc... Since this page refers to a list of UN members, I would suggest UN names.--Scotchorama (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with using UN names is, of course, that it makes finding the countries more difficult. Not a lot people know that you have to find Tanzania under "U" and Macedonia under "T", making the list less useful to the common user. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but otherwise what standard should we use to name and list? We should pick one standard and base the whole article on it. The list, as it stands, is unbelievably messy: Timor Leste or East Timor; DPRK or North Korea; Laos or Lao People's Democratic Republic; Côte d'Ivoire or Ivory Coast? There is no standard. The UN list has got legitimity for; Wikipedia has got practicality. But we cannot use both.--Scotchorama (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A compromise I can think of is to use all official UN names, but sort them using common names, so Tanzania is still under "T" and Macedonia still under "M", so people can find the countries easier. And moreover, since the table is already sortable, a user can also sort them using official UN names if they want. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good compromise. I'll update the list tomorrow and mention the order chosen. The article currently states "short-form English names", so I'll change it to "official United Nations-agreed name and listed alphabetically according to short-form English name". "Timor-Leste", for example, will be listed under E for "East Timor".--Scotchorama (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a member of the UN. It is not even a UN observer. It should not be blue on the map.Readin (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The ROC is shaded because the UN considers it part of China. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that I didn't realize that undo would delete all of the successive changes that were made by a user rather than the last one only; I'll have to be more judicious in the future. I did revert back one passage of sourced and relevant information re: Palestine because I can't see any reason to delete it and I can see a reason to keep it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've added citations to that section and moved some of the information to the footnotes. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Germane point Kosovo is a state that has significant recognition and a unique history with the UN, so it seems like it should be mentioned. What is the objection? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it was kind of mentioned in the Yugoslavia section. Obviously we don't want every "de facto independent nation" to be specifically mentioned in the non-members section. Its case is also kind of different from Palestine or Western Sahara. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the paragraph added:

The Republic of Kosovo is also not a member of the UN although UN peacekeeping forces are based in the country and since the Kosovo war the country has been put under UN authority until Kosovo declared independence.

I don't see what's the connection between being a "member of the UN" and "UN peacekeeping forces are based in the country". Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Kosovo is (or was depending on your POV) a UN protectorate, as labelled in a variety of sources. --Kvasir (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Unique As you point out, Kosovo isn't just another Abkhazia; it has some recognition. I think that it is noteworthy that the UN is involved in the dispute (just like with Western Sahara or Palestine.) There is not an iron-clad relationship between the two, but it is simply something worth noting. Don't you agree? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a UN protectorate, but that doesn't mean Kosovo "should" be a UN member. The statement, "The Republic of Kosovo is also not a member of the UN although UN peacekeeping forces are based in the country", is quite misleading, implying that the latter is some "cause" of the former. Chanheigeorge (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

True I didn't get that from the passage, but I can see how that could be inferred. Even if we agree that the text is not ideal, it's appropriate, correct? I suppose my greater point is not that the passage should stay as written as much as a reference to Kosovo is noteworthy as a non-member in part because of its international recognition and in part because of its history with UN involvement. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is a featured list, I'd like that the statements added here be factual and NPOV. How about something like this:

There are a number of de-facto independent states that are not recognized in any official capacity by the UN (as either members or observers), most notably the Republic of China, which was a UN member until 1971 when its seat was taken by the People's Republic of China (see Seat of China), and Kosovo, which was put under UN administration in 1999 and declared independence in 2008. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure that makes sense to me - although the first parenthetical coda doesn't need parenthesis in my estimation. I wouldn't want to delete the rest of the information about Palestine, Western Sahara, etc. Are you suggesting that? I think these are noteworthy additions. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraphs for Palestine and Western Sahara will still be there since they're different cases. Neither are de-facto independent states. Palestine is recognized as an observer, while Western Sahara is recognized by the UN as "disputed". Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Observers and non-members

I removed the para about China/ROC and Kosovo once again, simply for the reason that their status is already covered in depth in three separate sections, and the para in question just repeats what has already been stated in those sections, adding nothing new. I won't repeat the removal if this text is reinstated, since there's no point starting an edit war over this, but I just feel the information is completely redundant. Asav (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara is definitely different from Palestine. There is an international consensus about the statute of Palestine, I mean the General Assembly and the Security Council. Western Sahara is under dispute between the kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario front, a separatist faction claiming independence. Palestine is a decolonization process. Western Sahara was a decolonization process in the sixtee's and the seventee's when the Spanish was occupying the region and the kingdom of Morocco was claiming it at the UN level. Then after the establishment of the Polisario front, it became a separatism issue facing the unionist and the separatist sahraouis. Western Sahara has been declared as a non-self-governing territory since the sixtee's longer before the establishment of the Polisario front (1973) and SADR (1976). Actually, the kingdom of Morocco is administrating the region according to a previous UN resolution. After the end of war (1979-1991) corresponding to the end of the Soviet Union block, the UN established a ceasefire maintained by the MINURSO in a buffer zone from the Berm held to protect unionist sahraouis from polisario attacks to the algerian borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.255.160 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in this article that says the cases for Palestine and Western Sahara are the same. Their different status within the UN are carefully pointed out. For example, the article clearly says that Palestine is an observer while the SADR is not. Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that the map has been disputed because Taiwan is not a member. I think that it would be prudent to change the map back to when Taiwan was coloured grey. The UN has not passed a resolution recognising Taiwan as a part of China. Comments from UN officials to that effect are just that - comments. Only a UN resolution passed by the correct body can decide on a matter like this.

Therefore I would appreciate it if someone could sort the map out. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

the island of Taiwan is blue on the map not because the Republic of China is a member of the UN, but because it is the UN position that the PRC represents all of China, including Taiwan. Tibet is blue for the same reason. --dab (𒁳) 12:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the convenience of using {{flag}}, but in the case of this list, naming the states by their full official name is rather crucial. I'll try to migrate the list to such a format. --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The list uses the official names used by the UN. I don't see the need for full official names, not even the UN publish them, as far as I know. Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The list does give some offical names but not all, and it delegates the official names to a footnote section (only if the name has been changed during membership). This is unnecessarily complicated. I agree that the official name is a bit of a burden in many cases, but it is crucially relevant in others, particularly in the case of disputes between two rival states or governments. --dab (𒁳) 15:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The "official UN name" is the official designation used by the UN to refer to each member (see here [14]). Most of them are just short names while a few prefer a more official name. For the real official names we can just look at List of sovereign states. Using the real official names is an overkill for a problem that does not exist as I do not know of any rival states and governments (even the ROC does not effectively claim to represent China nowadays). Chanheigeorge (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OLD format put too many notes OUTSIDE the table - rendering the notes section of the table bacically pointless.

Obviously neatness is prefered on WikipEdia over it's usability - I know I hate having to scroll up and down the page to find a simple note... --Kurtle (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK there are member states that do not pay their UN fees and thus they do not vote in the GA. Does somebody have such list (the list here is from 2008)? Alinor (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither North nor South Korea is a UN member? Surprising.71.34.106.57 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, never mind--found em. Well, I suggest we list them as "North Korea" and "South Korea" as these are their common names that most people will be searching for them under. Agree?71.34.106.57 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)