| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project. | |  C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | | | This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: | |  Referencing and citation: not checked- Coverage and accuracy: not checked
- Structure: not checked
- Grammar and style: not checked
- Supporting materials: not checked
- Accessibility: not checked
| To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. | | | | | |  | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 90 days are automatically moved. | [edit] Coats of arms links to gif files of coats of arms are provided but at a 3rd party server? Are those images sort of (c) protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpga (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 December 2004 (UTC) [edit] Informations to the "Lager Hodolein" near Olomouc ("Olmütz") in 1946 I am looking für the article Dr. Walter Staffa in the german Wikipedia for informations to the Hodolein-camp near Olomouc (in this time called too Olmütz). Which persons where in the camp? Normal members of the german "Wehrmacht", normal people called "Sudetendeutsche", or members of organisations of Konrad Henlein oder NSDAP-members? Any information is warmly welcomed. Please inform me in the german" Wikipedia, under member "Nup". Thanks! Nup (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] Request for help for the article about the far right Dr. "Walter Staffa"; Nürtingen, Germany, and the article "Deutsches Seminar" (a extrem right organisation) and the article "Sudetendeutsche" in the german wikipedia - revisionistic difficulties in case of my edits there Please help to let win the truth in this articles. Look the german Wikipedia under "Walter Staffa", "Olomouc", "Deutsches Seminar" and "Sudetendeutsche". Look to my edits and my diffulties. Please contact and/or help me, but under the german "Wikipedia", I am there "Nup" too! Thanks Nup (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] Eliminating shameless POV promoting Sudeten German secessionism Preliminary note: astounding that an article of this nature has virtually been abandoned in 2008 -- astounding even though Czechoslovakia did break up 15 years ago. Some time before 2008, some editor(s) wrote a POV astounding for the arrogance of how blatant it is. Time to delete this crap. Hurmata (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC) [edit] Stub category needed We need {{Czechoslovakia-stub}}. We have other former country stubs ({{Ottoman-stub}}, {{Soviet-stub}}). Comments? Discuss stub creation proposal at STUBSORT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC) [edit] Sources needed "retroactively, there was internationally recognised government, army, international treaties etc" Can we ask sources about a possibility of a "retroactively" recognised government? Never, in books about international law, I read about this possibility. Instead, in history books, I read that a good history is never made later on. The situation of Czechoslovakia between 1939 and 1945 is clear: - under international law, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist as a result of the Nazi invasion of March 15. In fact, Czechoslovakia lost all its general international recognition;
- de facto, the Protectorate was allowed to retain a limited individuality (if I remember, it continued to be a separate subject in sport activity, as IOC and FIFA). About Slovakia, some States recognized it, other States considered it as a German puppet and consequently didn't recognize it;
- under a political (not legal!) point of view, a government-in-exile was recognized by Britain and its Commonwealth. But a government-in-exile isn't a State: nowadays Palestine isn't a UN member, simply because it didn't exercize sovereign power over its land. It is only a political fact: surely relevant, but we are speaking of politics, not of law.--Cusio (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Czechoslovakia between 1939 and 1945 have government, Army and was part of Declaration by United Nations in 1942, thus was recognised by 26 gov. Declaration explicitly say about Czechoslovakia, not "governament in exile". In spring 1942 Britain and Free France formally repudiate the Munich Agreement, thus conferring de jure legitimacy on the Beneš government as the continuation of the First Republic. For futher reading see Talmon, Stefan. Recognition of Governments in International Law with particular reference to governments in exile. Oxford University Press 1998.--Yopie (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- * For nullification of Muenich agreement and subsequent acts see for example Peace agreement with Hungary (Paris 10.2.1947) and Agreement between Czechoslovakia and Germany (Prague 11.12.1973)--Yopie (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Three errors in your vision: - US and UK are very important States, but they are not the lords of the world. It is not clear why if they say a thing, and all the rest of the world says another thing (including the League of Nations), Anglo-American position must overthrow the international community position (and please don't cancel it from the page);
- as I said you, international law doesn't consider government-in-exile as subject of sovereignty. Palestine signs treaties with the dozens of States which recognize it, but nevertheless international community does not consider it as a State: in fact, Palestine is not allowed to become a UN member;
- you misunderstood the meaning of the nullification of a treaty. Saying that Munich Agreement was null and void, means that it lost all its power from then. But to nullify it from 1938 to 1945, a time machine would need. De Gaulle nullified all Vichy's acts when he took power in 1944, but I think that no historian says that...Vichy never existed! A clearer exemple: Mister X, a Czechoslovak citizen living in Komárno, became Hungarian in 1938; in 1944 Mister X stole an apple. Let's imagine that Hungarian laws said that if you steal an apple, you only must pay 100$. Let's imagine that 1937 Czechoslovak laws said that if you steal an apple, you must go to prison. The greengrocer in summer 1945 went to police to accuse Mister X for previous year event. Could Mister X go to prison, because Munich Agreement was nullified? I think the answer is quite obvious, don't you?--Cusio (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are you probably student of law in first or second year, right? BTW my LLM thesis is "International war crimes" in department of international public law. So, we can conclude, that Nazi Germany non recognize Czechoslovakia as subject of international law, but UK, US and other 24 allied states, as stated in Declaration by United Nations, that Czechoslovakia de iure exist. Of course, Nazi Germany, imperial Japan and fascist Italy were against, but this opinion we cannot count, because they were defeated. Czechoslovakia was in 1939-45 sovereign state, because have government, citizens, Army and was recognized by other allied states. Of course, "de facto" was CS under unlawful rule of Nazi Germany. You probably don't understood difference between "de iure" and "de facto".
Did you have for your POV any source? Burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds material. Read WP:V first.--Yopie (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately for you, I'm graduated in international law with a thesis about the diplomatic recognition of continental European States during WW2, and I see you do not know the basic principles about sovereignty, about the States as subjects of international law, and generally the principles of ius cogens. No territory, no citizens: how can we speak of a country as your asserted CSK in 1940? And, by the way, I read Talmon's book, and authors agrees with him about the political consequences of governments-in-exile, but the legal consequences are clear too (and, when we use the word legal, or your loved de iure, we are referring to ius cogens). Answer my question you continue to ignore: why Palestine is not a member of UN, even it is recognized many many States?
Let's speak about sources and evidences. I think you will be able to show us your sources about your statements. You say that Czechoslovakia still existed after 1939. Ok, please say us: - the name of the Czechoslovak ambassador in Washington on January 1, 1940;
- the name of the Czechoslovak ambassador in Moscow on January 1, 1940;
- the list of countries in diplomatic relationship with CSK in 1940, choosing between this neutral States and Organizations: Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Denmark, Ireland, Holy See, League of Nations, International Olympic Commettee.
You said: "this opinion we cannot count, because they were defeated". Have you ever heard about sentences as "History is written by winners" or (in your loved Latin) "Vae victis"?--Cusio (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I think you like playing poker, but your bluffs are very poor. I asked you the name of the Czechoslovak ambassadors in 1940, not whenever you want: in 1940! Your link speaks about the situation in 1942 and later (and, however, 18 States are less a third of the 60 independent States of that age: a minority if maths is not an opinion).
But, let's go out from your useless game, and let's seriously speak about international law and the core of the problem. You are right when you say that membership in UN is not necessary for sovereignty. What is necessary then? International law links sovereignty to the effective control of the land. Now, I can answer the question you was not able to answer: Palestine is not member of UN because it is not considered a State by the large majority of international community, because the supreme control of its land is owned by Israel. German invasion and annexation in 1939 led to a classic debellatio, and consequently to the end of Czechoslovak State.
Then, Government Benes in London was a very, very important and positive political fact, I totally agree with you about it, but politics is politics, law is law.--Cusio (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC) -
- Still same, burden of proof is yours. Did you have reliable sources? Read WP:OR first --Yopie (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Asking sources on this basic principles of international law by someone who says having studied law, is equivalent to someone affirming he had studied maths and asking sources about the fact that substraction is the opposite of addiction. But well, if you want them, I will show you dozens of books. Considering that you didn't give us a sole source about your position (and you can't give them, because the aren't), this game will arrive to an end. Let's see us tomorrow.--Cusio (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC) -
- Huh, non-understanding of burden of evidence by someone, who calls himself lawyer is nice :-) You probably don't go to the court? Of course, we don't talk about principles, we talk about reliable and verifiable source, where is explicitly "Czechoslovakia between 1939 and 1945 not exist de iure". And source must be not from neonazis, postfascist or other revisionist.
BTW: You have problem differentiate between declarative theory of statehood and Constitutive theory of statehood. Please read article Sovereign state first, especially last part. And remember Ex injuria jus non oritur. --Yopie (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC) About your "belliregent" theory read The international law of diplomacy: the diplomatic instrument and world. Because you probably don't understand, what is government-in-exile, simply read International law: a dictionary - Conclusion: All sources say, that Czechoslovakia exist "de iure" between 1939 and 1945 with government in exile and was fully recognised as "de iure" sovereign state.--Yopie (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I've already said you: you are not a good player of poker. Wiki page about Constitutive theory of statehood clearly says that the constitutive theory is merely a theoretical construct as it has neither been codified by treaty nor widely recognized in international law; your linked Talmon says that nobody recognized CSK before late 1941 (so, your same sources affirm a clear hole in CSK continuity) and, even after 1941, the large majority of the international community saw CSK as defunct (we can surely say that countries as Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland or Vatican City are not known for their fascist history).
I see, your studies of international law was made on text of Metternich, Talleyrand, and other ministries of the Congress of Vienna. No, we are speaking of certainly more modern international law. I suggest you some text where you can study that effectiveness, and not recognition, is the base of statehood.
* about effectiveness as basic principle for statehood - underline: Traditionally, the criteria for statehood have been regarded as resting solely on considerations of effectiveness. Entities with a reasonably defined territory, a permanent population, a more or less stable government and a substantial degree of independence of other States have been treated as States. Other factors, such as permanence, willingness to obey international law, and recognition, have usually been regarded as of rather peripheral importance. To some extent this represents the modern position.
- "The existence of a State is a question of fact, not of law. The criterion of statehood is not legitimacy but effectiveness". Israeli Foreign Minister Mr.Eban, 27 July 1948.
- Again about effectiveness
- Finally, I suggest you J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979)"
End of the game. --Cusio (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC) - I agree with Cusio Yopie is writing obvious nonsense and with very bad English. Yopie writes things like "All sources say, that Czechoslovakia exist "de iure" between 1939 and 1945 with government in exile and was fully recognised" 1. All sources -nonsense ,2.fully recognised nonsense. As Cusio noted nobody recognised prior to of 1942 so there was no recognition none, whatsoever and even later there was no "full recognition" but a recognition by a minority of states like today's Kosovo. Yopie should go to the Kosovo page and explain how Kosovo is a full state with full recognition there first. Hobartimus (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- End of game? I wouldn't say so. Sorry to interrupt your friendly chatter but I see a few points that need to be clarified before you continue.
- The sentence containing the list of all the bodies and states that broke the diplomatic relations with RCS after '38 does indeed need a clear citation and should not be added without one.
- Citing an Israeli prime minister on the matters of state recognition is a lame bluff on your side, we all know, that in 1948 Israel was in dire need of such an interpretation, but was hardly an authority in the field.
- "International law links sovereignty to the effective control of the land." now that is a very simplistic and somewhat slimmed down summary, as there is no definitive body of 'international law' and the approach you are describing is merely one of the alternatives. a "de facto" status leads to a legal status: it's a basic principle of international law is also not true, it's definitely not a basic and rigid principle of the international law and is under debate even today.
- But since we're talking the period almost immediately after Montevideo here, let's assume, that the declaratory principle should be applied. However, there is more to it, than a simple matter of recognition vs. territory control. The demise of Czechoslovakia was due to the Munich agreement and Yopie was right when he claimed, that the treaty was later rendered invalid ab intio [1]. Since the Munich agreement itself was in violation of 'international law' all its corollaries were invalid as well, therefore de iure Czechoslovakia never stopped existing and it was de facto replaced by the Protectorate and Slovak state. Therefore to claim that ". From 1939 to 1945 the state did not have legal existence" is very problematic, since it did not lose the legal existence in the first place.
- Moreover, the government in exile fulfilled all the conditions laid down by Montevideo. Territory, population, government and capacity to enter into international relations were all there, although the government did not control the territory at the time (but this was accounted for, see again [2]). Even if we ignore the constitutive princinple altogether, there were two competing claims to statehood of which one was based on an illegal document. This imo concludes that the legal existence of Czechoslovakia was never interrupted. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to go into details other than what I said in this discussion. I'd like to just note that it is impossible for Wikipedia to state that two states existed "de iure" on the same territory. As such Wikipedia in general has to make a determination on articles discussing 1939-1945 Slovakia and 1939-1945 CZE and treat one or the other like a non-existant entities in the legal sense and articulate this throughout articles. It is impossible for both states to exist as legally legitimate. (to be more precise for wikipedia to claim both as "de iure" existing entities). Do we agree in this? Hobartimus (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
|
