10 Countries That Don't Officially Exist

10 Countries That Don't Officially Exist


It’d be nice to have your own country, but only if other people recognise you, find out more in 10 countries that don’t officially exist.

State of Palestine


Officially recognized as a non-member observer state of the UN in 2013, despite US and Israeli opposition. In 1964, the Organization for the Liberalisation of Palestine was created, while on 15th of November in 1988, the state of Palestine declared its independence. It's been recognized by 68% of countries.

Illegal Occupation of Northern Cyprus by Turkey


The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is an unrecognized and illegal "state". It forms the part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus which was occupied in 1974 when the Turkish army invaded the island, and which then declared itself "independent", on 15 November 1983. It's recognized solely by Turkey.

Republic of Kosovo


The Republic of Kosovo is claimed by Serbia as part of its sovereign territory. Actions for Kosovo's liberation began after the elections of 2007, when Hashim Thaçi took power. In 2008, the first Constitution was adopted, which came into effect on 15th of June, without being recognized by Serbia. The state is recognized by 108 countries (53%).

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic


Declared independence in 1976, claiming sovereignty over the entire Western Sahara. The creation of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic was announced in Bir Lehlou in Western Sahara on February 27, 1976, as the Polisario declared the need for a new entity to fill what they considered a political void left by the departing Spanish colonisers. A new 1999 Constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic took a form similar to the parliamentary constitutions of many European states, but with some paragraphs suspended until the achievement of "full independence". The state is recognized by 35 countries (26%).

Republic of China


Also known as Taiwan, only recognized by 22 UN members - arguably due to China's influence. Despite the declaration of its independence, China insists that the area is its province, but the state has developed its own political system, and elections are held since 1947. It's been only recognized only by 11% of countries.

Republic of South Ossetia


Declaring independence from Georgia in 1990, fighting has occurred as recently as 2008 in the South Ossetia War. In the wake of the 2008 South Ossetia War, Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru recognised South Ossetia's independence (3% recognition).

Republic of Abkhazia


A breakaway region of Georgia, which declared independence in 1999. Abkhazia is situated on the Eastern coast of the Black sea, bordering Russia in the North and North Caucasus along the Caucasus Mountains Range and Georgia in the East. Until 26th August 2008, when Russia (followed by Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, Vanuatu and Tuvalu) recognised both Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, Abkhazia continued to act as a de facto sovereign state, constantly making its case for international recognition, having finally declared its full independence from Georgia in 1999. (3% recognition)

Transnistria


Officially part of Moldova, but enjoys greater independence than other states with limited recognition. The War of Transnistria followed armed clashes on a limited scale which broke out between Transnistrian separatists and Moldova as early as November 1990 at Dubăsari. Volunteers, including Cossacks, came from Russia and Ukraine to help the separatist side. All UN member states consider Transnistria a legal part of the Republic of Moldova. Only the partially recognized states of South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Abkhazia recognize it as a sovereign entity after it declared independence from Moldova in 1990 with Tiraspol as its declared capital.

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic


Officially part of Azerbaijan and only recognized by 3 countries - themselves with limited recognition. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is a presidential democracy with a unicameral parliament.

Republic of Somaliland


Internationally recognized as being a region of Somalia rather than a separate country. After the collapse of the central government in 1991, the local government, led by the SNM, declared independence from the rest of Somalia on 18 May of the same year. However, Somaliland's self-proclaimed independence remains unrecognised by any country or international organisation.

Reference: Alltime10s

Related:
10 Countries That Don't Officially Exist 10 Countries That Don't Officially Exist Reviewed by Katerina Pap on 7:27 AM Rating: 5

6 comments

  1. TURKEY's OPERATION ON CYPRUS IN 1974 IS COMPLETELY LEGAL:
    (1) Makarios (1ST PRESIDENT OF CYPRUS) (the UN Security Council Speech, 19 July 1974):
    MAKARIOS: "CYPRUS WAS INVADED BY GREECE"
    Sound record of the speech: http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history/republic/makarios1.wav

    (2) Turkey acted on Cyprus via Art. IV(2) Treaty of Guarantee ("In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty."), hence in compatible with Art. 2(4) UN Charter.

    (3) The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) (29.07.1974, Resolution 573): "The Turkish military INTERVENTION was the exercise of a RIGHT EMANATING FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY and the fulfilment of a LEGAL and MORAL obligation."

    (4) Greece's Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979; Case No: 2658/79): "The Turkish military INTERVENTION in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was LEGAL. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, had the right to fulfill her obligations. The real culprits . . . are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this INTERVENTION." Note: Just after 5 years later than 1974, in 1979, Greece's Highest Court decided Turkish military intervention is legal without making any difference between 1st and 2nd military operation!

    (5) Till now, there is NO sanction applied on Turkey due to 1974 Cyprus war: another sign of legality dimension of 1974 events.
    If a country invades another one, UN imposes sanctions on that country.
    Iraq invaded Kuwait, and UN imposed sanctions on Iraq.
    Turkey did not invade Cyprus, hence UN did not impose any sanction on Turkey!

    (6) There is no UN resolution that calls the Turkey's 1974 action as "invasion"!

    ReplyDelete
  2. TURKISH CYPRIOTS ARE RIGHT IN THEIR CAUSE: INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (2010) PERSPECTIVE
    International Court of Justice (ICJ) Kosovo Decision, Paragraph 81:
    Several participants have invoked resolutions of the Security Council condemning particular declarations of independence: see, inter alia, Security Council resolutions 216 (1965) and 217 (1965), concerning Southern Rhodesia; Security Council resolution 541 (1983), concerning northern Cyprus; and Security Council resolution 787 (1992), concerning the Republika Srpska.

    The Court notes, however, that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the ILLEGALITY ATTACHED to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or WOULD HAVE BEEN, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens). In the context of Kosovo. the Security Council has never taken this position. The EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that NO GENERAL PROHIBITION against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council. (end of paragraph 81) AF: "participants" in the above paragraph is participant countries that were questioned by ICJ in the proceedings before the Court, not the participant jury judges of the ICJ. See (P.15. Questions were put by Members of the Court to participants in the oral proceedings; P.80. Several participants in the proceedings before the Court)

    Question1: Who attached “illegality” to Declaration of Independence (DOI) of Northern Cyprus? UN SC or ICJ?
    Answer 1: UN Security Council, of course. ICJ only cites this attachment. ICJ does NOT make any decision or statement about a country’s legality or DOI unless it is requested to do so; as in the case of Kosovo: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?”. Inter alia:

    Question 2: Was ICJ requested to give an advisory opinion on "declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus"?
    Answer 2: No!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Question 3: In paragraph 81, ICJ is mentioning "WOULD HAVE BEEN" and "EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER". By this, what does ICJ imply?
    Answer 3: ICJ is implying that THE RESOLUTIONS OF UN SC on DOIs of ONLY SOME of the countries are TOTALLY ARBITRARY and TOTALLY DISCRETIONARY (i.e. DOES NOT DEPEND ON ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW.
    Remember: The President of the Int’l Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi Owada, 2010: "International law contains "NO PROHIBITION" on declarations of independence.").
    (This "NO PROHIBITION" includes "UN SC’s restrictive conditions for the permanent status of a territory" as well!)
    ICJ is emphasizing this DISCRETIONARY and SELF-ORDAINEDNESS of UN SC via phrase additions and humiliations like "EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER"; and adding "WOULD HAVE BEEN" next to "they WERE, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force" to show that "UN SC’s CONNECTING to UNLAWFUL use of force" may even be TOTALLY BASELESS (ICJ did not pass only with "were connected" in the sentence!): By saying "TOTALLY BASELESS", Remember (inter alia):

    (1) The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) (29.07.1974, Resolution 573) "The Turkish military intervention was the exercise of a RIGHT EMANATING FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY and the FULLFILMENT OF A LEGAL and moral OBLIGATION.

    (2) Greece’s Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979; Case No: 2658/79): "The Turkish military INTERVENTION in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was LEGAL. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, had the right to fulfill her obligations. The real culprits . . . are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this INTERVENTION".

    ICJ’s using of "UN SC’s restrictive conditions for the permanent status of a territory" does not mean "ICJ believes such a non-existence of a restrictive condition for the DOI of a country to be legal; BUT RATHER: it only means the objections of the countries towards "DOI of Kosovo" is BASELESS EVEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF OBJECTING COUNTRIES! Namely, such a condition is not in the perspective/framework of ICJ
    (Because: President of ICJ Hisashi Owada, 2010: "International law contains "NO PROHIBITION" on declarations of independence.").
    This is the perspective of ICJ; and not solely peculiar to the head of ICJ; because, the tone of paragraph 81 is totally in this scope; read the whole paragraph 81; and its AFFIRMATIVE nature towards "NO VIOLATION" at the end. The meaning of P81 in fact is implicitly loaded with "NO PROHIBITION" as well!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Question 4: After the partnership government collapsed, the Greek Cypriot led administration was recognized as the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus at the stage of the debates in New York in February 1964 ( Cyprus-Mail, 09.03.2014 UNFICYP: a living fossil of the Cold War: http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/03/09/unficyp-a-living-fossil-of-the-cold-war ).
    Does the UN SC have a right to:
    - recognize the Flamans as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Flamans try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Wallons?
    - recognize the Wallons as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Wallons try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Flamans?
    - recognize the Czechs as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Czechs try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Slovaks?
    - recognize the Slovaks as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Slovaks try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Czechs?
    - recognize the Greek Cypriots as the sole representator of Cyprus (a country founded in partnership of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) if Greek Cypriots try to capture all of Cyprus and try to kill all Turkish Cypriots?
    Answer 4: Obviously No! UN SC has no right to remove a sovereignty of a people from the country that was founded in partnership with that people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Question 5: What happened in Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe (PACE) after Greek Cypriots forcefully captured partnership government of 1960 in 1963?
    Answer 5: Since Cyprus can be represented by only "mutual consensus" and "participation" of both of the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, all the repsentation of Cyprus was expelled from PACE, and between 1965-1985, there were NO Cypriot representatives in PACE!

    Question 6: Did Greek Cypriots try to kill all Turkish Cypriots?
    Answer 6: Then–United Nations Secretary General, U Thant report (UN SG S/5950 Report 10 September 1964, paragraph 180): "UNFICYP carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances; it shows that in 109 villages, MOST OF THEM TURKISH CYPRIOTS OR MIXED villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting"
    http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Chapter-VII-S-5950.pdf
    "MOST OF THEM TURKISH CYPRIOTS OR MIXED” means “NONE OF THE SOLELY GREEK CYPRIOTS VILLAGES were destroyed".
    Akritas Plan (Killing every Turkish Cypriots) was applied by Greek Cypriots during 1963 - 1974 and 2800 Turkish Cypriots (3% of then-Turkish Cypriot population) were brutally massacred. Also, Turkish Cypriots were squeezed to the enclaves (3% of total area of whole Cyprus).

    ReplyDelete
  6. USA FEDERAL COURT (09October2014): "TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS IS A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY"

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) FEDERAL COURT REJECTED THE RETURNING REQUEST OF GREEK CYPRIOTS TO THE NORTHERN CYPRUS:

    "..Greek Cypriots CANNOT CLAIM that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots....
    Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...
    TRNC is NOT VULNERABLE to a lawsuit in Washington"

    The news of the Court decision (13.10.2014): http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/13/72392.htm
    The page of the Court case: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002
    The Decision of the Court: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53

    Previously, Greek Cypriots(' request to return back to Northern Cyprus) were rejected by European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

    ReplyDelete

Don't show again. Close

Like us on Facebook?