Difference between revisions of "User:Indradhanush/foreignaffairs"

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(This is a mock edit, please note that I will edit it properly soon)
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
The State was a member of the [[Micronational Assembly]] and helped in the formation of the MID Act<ref>Chandrachur Basu, 10 March 2021 [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n3vnz5nO4HnKfZnvJN4s5JE9dd00kVOmO9A6WtiDPxA/edit Micronational Assembly MID Act]</ref>.
 
The State was a member of the [[Micronational Assembly]] and helped in the formation of the MID Act<ref>Chandrachur Basu, 10 March 2021 [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n3vnz5nO4HnKfZnvJN4s5JE9dd00kVOmO9A6WtiDPxA/edit Micronational Assembly MID Act]</ref>.
 
{{multiple image
 
{{multiple image
  | background color = #0000ff
+
  | background color = #000000
 
  | total_width = 450
 
  | total_width = 450
 
  | image1 = Chandrachur_Basu-P1.jpg
 
  | image1 = Chandrachur_Basu-P1.jpg
Line 49: Line 49:
 
<small> Other names:- छठवीं एन्देरइस  गणराज्य ([[w:Hindi|Hindi]]), ষষ্ঠ আয়েন্দেরেসে প্রজাতন্ত্র ([[w:Bengali_language|Bengali]]), Sixième Aenderese République ([[w:French_language|French]])</small>
 
<small> Other names:- छठवीं एन्देरइस  गणराज्य ([[w:Hindi|Hindi]]), ষষ্ঠ আয়েন্দেরেসে প্রজাতন্ত্র ([[w:Bengali_language|Bengali]]), Sixième Aenderese République ([[w:French_language|French]])</small>
  
The State of Indradhanush and Aenderia began in 27 February 2021 which were formalised following the official beginning of bilateral relations on 15 April 2020 following the signing of a treaty of friendship and mutual recognition between the two nations<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mae.es/NR/rdonlyres/E53D6D9A-03FF-49C9-9174-F96473692B2A/0/J.pdf|title=Comunicados y notas de prensa de la OID|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927030140/http://www.mae.es/NR/rdonlyres/E53D6D9A-03FF-49C9-9174-F96473692B2A/0/J.pdf|archive-date=September 27, 2007}}</ref>. The treaty was presented from Indradhanush and signed by His Majesty Chandrachur Basu, whereas President Lavtev signed on behalf of the Aenderese government. The relations have been cordial between the two nations and regular series of communications have been maintained at the highest levels.  
+
The State of Indradhanush and Aenderia began in 27 February 2021 which were formalised following the official beginning of bilateral relations on 15 April 2020 following the signing of a treaty of friendship and mutual recognition between the two nations<ref>[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1501cGnLYqaynP0F6kyZ_uJft7K0IkL2WAW1sfgwepP0/edit?usp=sharing Aenderia and Indradhanush sign a Mutual Recognition Treaty]</ref>. The treaty was presented from Indradhanush and signed by His Majesty Chandrachur Basu, whereas President Lavtev signed on behalf of the Aenderese government. The relations have been cordial between the two nations and regular series of communications have been maintained at the highest levels.  
  
 
Chandrachur Basu also was an MP in the Parliament of Aenderia. He founded the Aenderian National Congress and joined the AUAF (Aenderians United Against Fascism) Coalition against the new Pro-Fascism Parties.
 
Chandrachur Basu also was an MP in the Parliament of Aenderia. He founded the Aenderian National Congress and joined the AUAF (Aenderians United Against Fascism) Coalition against the new Pro-Fascism Parties.
Line 63: Line 63:
 
!Notes
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|-
|<ref>{{cite news|url=https://maldivesindependent.com/politics/maldives-defends-un-vote-on-chagos-islands-dispute-145501 |title=Maldives defends UN vote on Chagos Islands dispute |website=Maldives Independent}}</ref>
+
|<ref>[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zPUt70lfu_vqJRwUEggk1PCyFbYbxtsdiNI5c2jad8o/edit?usp=sharing Xahastan and Indradhanush sign a Treaty of Mutual Recognition]</ref>
 
|-
 
|-
 
|<ref>[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j54wpkMswa3J1f4EW5SFAHAla1dk0t_GPD-hivDIxCk/edit?usp=sharing Limbonia and Indradhanush sign a Mutual Recognition Treaty]</ref>
 
|<ref>[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j54wpkMswa3J1f4EW5SFAHAla1dk0t_GPD-hivDIxCk/edit?usp=sharing Limbonia and Indradhanush sign a Mutual Recognition Treaty]</ref>
Line 131: Line 131:
 
| align="center" |26 February 2021
 
| align="center" |26 February 2021
 
| align="center" |Subsequent signatory
 
| align="center" |Subsequent signatory
|[[File:Scanned image of Indradhanush signing the Wrythe Convention.jpg|thumb|Scanned image of [[Indradhanush]] signing the Wrythe Convention]][[Indradhanush]] became one of the subsequent signatories of the Wrythe Convention<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.janes.com/article/71617/eritrea-s-alleged-seizure-of-disputed-djiboutian-territory-increases-likelihood-of-miscalculation-leading-to-military-escalation |publisher=[[Jane's Information Group]] |first=Chris |last=Suckling |title=Eritrea's alleged seizure of disputed Djiboutian territory increases likelihood of miscalculation leading to military escalation |quote=Djibouti's foreign minister, Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, alleged in a televised address on 16 June that Eritrean forces had occupied the disputed Dumaira Mountains, immediately after Qatar withdrew a 500-strong contingent of peacekeepers without notification on 14 June. |access-date=2017-06-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170625110211/http://www.janes.com/article/71617/eritrea-s-alleged-seizure-of-disputed-djiboutian-territory-increases-likelihood-of-miscalculation-leading-to-military-escalation |archive-date=2017-06-25 |url-status=dead }}</ref> on 26 February 2021 having successfully ratified the terms and objectives laid forth by the convention. The convention which condemns sockpuppeting, identity theft, and false claims within micronationalism. Signatories to the convention pledge to not enter into relations with any entities engaged in fabrications and falsehoods, and by signing the treaty reserve the right to suspend or revoke recognition of any entities found to have engaged in such behaviour. [[Indradhanush]] has been successful in implementing the terms laid forth by the Wrythe Convention in its foreign policy and also encouraged other nations to be a signatory of this convention.
+
|[[File:Scanned image of Indradhanush signing the Wrythe Convention.jpg|thumb|Scanned image of [[Indradhanush]] signing the Wrythe Convention]][[Indradhanush]] became one of the subsequent signatories of the Wrythe Convention<ref>{{cite web|url=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sircM3C7l9XNooRlp2iopfYEjuzRqGnLpa8xdHgmLCI/edit?usp=sharing|title=Indradhanush signs the Wrythe Convention.|author=Chandrachur Basu}}</ref> on 26 February 2021 having successfully ratified the terms and objectives laid forth by the convention. The convention which condemns sockpuppeting, identity theft, and false claims within micronationalism. Signatories to the convention pledge to not enter into relations with any entities engaged in fabrications and falsehoods, and by signing the treaty reserve the right to suspend or revoke recognition of any entities found to have engaged in such behaviour. [[Indradhanush]] has been successful in implementing the terms laid forth by the Wrythe Convention in its foreign policy and also encouraged other nations to be a signatory of this convention.
 
|-
 
|-
 
|[[Sough2020|Sough2020 Convention on Global Climate Change]]
 
|[[Sough2020|Sough2020 Convention on Global Climate Change]]
 
वैश्विक जलवायु परिवर्तन पर सौह2020 सम्मेलन <small>([[w:Hindi|Hindi]])</small>
 
वैश्विक जलवायु परिवर्तन पर सौह2020 सम्मेलन <small>([[w:Hindi|Hindi]])</small>
  
বিশ্বব্যাপী জলবায়ু পরিবর্তন সম্পর্কিত সম্মেলন <small>([[w:Bangla language|Bengali]])</small>
+
বিশ্বব্যাপী জলবায়ু পরিবর্তন সম্পর্কিত সম্মেলন <small>([[w:Bangla language|Bengali]])</small>
 
| align="center" |26 February 2021
 
| align="center" |26 February 2021
 
| align="center" |Subsequent signatory
 
| align="center" |Subsequent signatory
Line 142: Line 142:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|[[w:Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations|Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations]]
 
|[[w:Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations|Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations]]
|1 March 2021
+
राजनयिक संबंधों पर वियना कन्वेंशन <small>([[w:Hindi|Hindi]])</small>
|Signatory
+
 
 +
কূটনৈতিক সম্পর্ক সম্পর্কিত ভিয়েনা কনভেনশন
 +
 
 +
<small>([[w:Bangla language|Bengali]])</small>
 +
| align="center" |1 March 2021
 +
| align="center" |Signatory
 
|[[Indradhanush]] became one of the signatories of the [[w:Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations|Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations]].
 
|[[Indradhanush]] became one of the signatories of the [[w:Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations|Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations]].
 
It signed the original copy of the [[w:Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations|Convention]], which is in [[w:English language|English]], [[w:French language|French]], Russian, [[w:Spanish language|Spanish]] and [[w:Chinese language|Chinese]], with the help of [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]].
 
It signed the original copy of the [[w:Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations|Convention]], which is in [[w:English language|English]], [[w:French language|French]], Russian, [[w:Spanish language|Spanish]] and [[w:Chinese language|Chinese]], with the help of [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]].
Line 157: Line 162:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|[[w:Vienna Convention on Consular Relations|Vienna Convention on Consular Relations]]
 
|[[w:Vienna Convention on Consular Relations|Vienna Convention on Consular Relations]]
|1 March 2021
+
| align="center" |1 March 2021
|Signatory
+
| align="center" |Signatory
 
|[[Indradhanush]] became one of the signatories of the [[w:Vienna Convention on Consular Relations|Vienna Convention on Consular Relations]].
 
|[[Indradhanush]] became one of the signatories of the [[w:Vienna Convention on Consular Relations|Vienna Convention on Consular Relations]].
 
It signed the original copy of the [[w:Vienna Convention on Consular Relations|Convention]], which is in [[w:English language|English]], [[w:French language|French]], Russian, [[w:Spanish language|Spanish]] and [[w:Chinese language|Chinese]], with the help of [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]].
 
It signed the original copy of the [[w:Vienna Convention on Consular Relations|Convention]], which is in [[w:English language|English]], [[w:French language|French]], Russian, [[w:Spanish language|Spanish]] and [[w:Chinese language|Chinese]], with the help of [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]].
  
The '''Vienna Convention on Consular Relations''' is an international [[w:Treaty|treaty]] that defines a framework for [[w:Consulate|consular]] [[w:International relations|relations]] between [[w:Sovereign state|sovereign states]]. It codifies many consular practices that originated from [[Customary international law|state custom]] and various bilateral agreements between states.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3120/is_200407/ai_n7779206 |title=Why are Egypt and Sudan in dispute over the Hala'ib Triangle?(Quizzical)(Brief Article) |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071113145252/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3120/is_200407/ai_n7779206 |archive-date=2007-11-13 }}</ref>
+
The '''Vienna Convention on Consular Relations''' is an international [[w:Treaty|treaty]] that defines a framework for [[w:Consulate|consular]] [[w:International relations|relations]] between [[w:Sovereign state|sovereign states]]. It codifies many consular practices that originated from [[Customary international law|state custom]] and various bilateral agreements between states.<ref>Michael John Garcia, "Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Overview of U.S. Implementation and International Court of Justice (ICJ) Interpretation of Consular Notification Requirements", ''CRS Report for Congress'' (May 17, 2004), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32390.pdf</ref>
  
 
[[w:Consul (representative)|Consuls]] have traditionally been employed to represent the interests of state's or their nationals at an [[w:Diplomatic mission|embassy or consulate]] in another country. The Convention defines and articulates the functions, rights, and [[w:Diplomatic immunity|immunities]] accorded to consular officers and their offices, as well as the rights and duties of "receiving States" (where the consul is based) and "sending States" (the state the consul represents).
 
[[w:Consul (representative)|Consuls]] have traditionally been employed to represent the interests of state's or their nationals at an [[w:Diplomatic mission|embassy or consulate]] in another country. The Convention defines and articulates the functions, rights, and [[w:Diplomatic immunity|immunities]] accorded to consular officers and their offices, as well as the rights and duties of "receiving States" (where the consul is based) and "sending States" (the state the consul represents).
 
|-
 
|-
|}
+
|[[w:Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties|Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties]]
===Membership of intermicronational organizations===
+
| align="center" |2 April 2021
[[File:MAFLAG2020.png|alt=|thumb|206x206px|''Flag of the Micronational Assembly'']]
+
| align="center" |Signatory
 +
|The '''Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties''' ('''VCLT''') is an [[w:Treaty|international agreement]] regulating treaties between [[w:Sovereign state|states]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vienna-Convention-on-the-Law-of-Treaties|title=Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties {{!}} History & Summary|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|language=en|access-date=2019-07-26}}</ref> Known as the "treaty on treaties", it establishes comprehensive rules, procedures, and guidelines for how treaties are defined, drafted, amended, interpreted, and generally operated.<ref>{{Cite book|chapter-url=https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1498|chapter=Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)|doi=10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/e1498|language=en|access-date=2019-07-26|title=Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law|year=2006|last1=Anthony|first1=Aust|isbn=9780199231690|url=https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3872&context=til}}</ref> An international treaty is a written agreement between international law subjects reflecting their consent to the creation, alteration, or termination of their rights and obligations.<ref>capt. Enchev, V. (2012), Fundamentals of Maritime Law {{ISBN|978-954-8991-69-8}}</ref> The VCLT is considered a codification of [[w:customary international law|customary international law]] and state practice concerning treaties.<ref name="juridicum.univie.ac.at">{{Cite web|url=https://juridicum.univie.ac.at/news-events/news-detailansicht/news/50-years-vienna-convention-on-the-law-of-treaties/?tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=c429b920a208a21200d829194f27c907|title=50 Years Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties|website=juridicum.univie.ac.at|language=de|access-date=2019-11-12}}</ref>
  
====Micronational Assembly====
+
The VCLT is regarded as one of the most important instruments in treaty law and remains an authoritative guide in disputes over treaty interpretation.<ref name="juridicum.univie.ac.at" />
[[Indradhanush]] joined the Micronational Assembly being accepted to the organization by its members, initially'','' as an observer nation and was later promoted as a full member nation on 29 March 2021. [[Indradhanush]] became an important part of the organization especially from its professional point of view and created the MID Act<ref>{{Cite book|title=African Boundaries: A Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopedia|last=Brownlie|first=Ian|author-link=Ian Brownlie|publisher=Institute for International Affairs, Hurst and Co.|year=1979|pages=867–884; 917–921}}</ref> within the organization. [[Indradhanush]] also served as the Minister of MicroWiki Improvement.{{short description|Wikipedia list article}}
 
==Ongoing disputes between UN member/observer states==
 
===Africa===
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
 
|-
 
|-
!Territory
+
|[[w:Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States|Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States]]
!Claimants
+
| align="center" |2 April 2021
!Notes
+
| align="center" |Signatory
 +
|The '''Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States''' is a treaty signed at [[w:Montevideo|Montevideo]], [[w:Uruguay|Uruguay]], on December 26, 1933, during the Seventh [[w:International Conference of American States|International Conference of American States]]. The Convention codifies the [[declarative theory of statehood]] as accepted as part of customary [[w:international law|international law]].<ref>{{cite book|author=Hersch Lauterpacht|title=Recognition in International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419|year=2012|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=419|isbn=9781107609433}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|-
|[[Abyei]], [[Heglig Crisis|Heglig]], Jodha, [[Kafia Kingi]] and Kaka
+
|2015 Paris Agreement
|'''{{SDN}}'''{{SSD}}
+
| align="center" |2 April 2021
|Both Sudan and South Sudan have claimed the area after the [[Second Sudanese Civil War|civil war]] that led to South Sudan's independence. Heglig was controlled by South Sudan in mid-April 2012 but retaken by the Sudan. Abyei was taken in May 2012.
+
| align="center" |Signatory
|-
+
|The '''Paris Agreement''' ({{lang-fr|Accord de Paris}}) is an international treaty on [[climate change]], adopted in 2015. It covers [[climate change mitigation]], [[Climate change adaptation|adaptation]], and [[Climate finance|finance]]. The Agreement was negotiated by 196 [[party (law)|parties]] at the [[2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference]] near Paris, France.
|[[Banc du Geyser]]
 
|''{{MDG}}{{COM}}''
 
''{{FRA}}''
 
|[[Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean]], a district of the [[French Southern and Antarctic Lands|French Southern Territories]].
 
|-
 
|[[Bassas da India]], [[Europa Island]] and [[Juan de Nova Island]]
 
|'''{{FRA}}'''{{MDG}}<ref name="CIA">[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/fields/326.html Field Listing - Disputes - international], ''[[The World Factbook]]''</ref>
 
|''De facto'' a part of the French overseas territory of the [[French Southern and Antarctic Lands|French Southern Territories]].
 
|-
 
|[[Ceuta]],<ref name="iht.com">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/|title=Breaking News, World News & Multimedia|access-date=30 June 2017}}</ref> [[Melilla]], other [[plazas de soberanía]]
 
|'''{{ESP}}'''{{MAR}}
 
|Ceuta and Melilla are administered by Spain as [[Autonomous communities of Spain|autonomous cities]].
 
An [[Perejil Island crisis|incident]] on [[Perejil Island]] happened in 2002, after which both countries agreed to return to ''[[status quo]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mae.es/NR/rdonlyres/E53D6D9A-03FF-49C9-9174-F96473692B2A/0/J.pdf|title=Comunicados y notas de prensa de la OID|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927030140/http://www.mae.es/NR/rdonlyres/E53D6D9A-03FF-49C9-9174-F96473692B2A/0/J.pdf|archive-date=September 27, 2007}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Chagos Archipelago]]
 
|'''{{GBR}}'''{{MUS}}{{MDV}}<ref>{{cite news|url=https://maldivesindependent.com/politics/maldives-defends-un-vote-on-chagos-islands-dispute-145501 |title=Maldives defends UN vote on Chagos Islands dispute |website=Maldives Independent}}</ref>
 
|United Kingdom administers the archipelago as part of the [[British Indian Ocean Territory]]. An advisory opinion of the [[International Court of Justice]] has found the United Kingdom administration to be unlawful and called upon the United Kingdom to complete the process of decolonization with respect to Mauritius.
 
|-
 
|Doumeira Mountain, [[Ras Doumeira]] and [[Doumeira Island]]
 
|'''{{ERI}}'''
 
{{DJI}}
 
|Basis of the [[Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict]] of 2008. Disputed territory occupied by Eritrea following withdrawal of Qatari peacekeepers in June 2017.<ref name="IHS">{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-djibouti-eritrea-border-idUSKBN1971JR |publisher=[[Reuters]] |title=Djibouti, Eritrea in territorial dispute after Qatar peacekeepers leave |first=Aaron |last=Maasho |editor-first=James |editor-last=Dalgleish |date=June 16, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.janes.com/article/71617/eritrea-s-alleged-seizure-of-disputed-djiboutian-territory-increases-likelihood-of-miscalculation-leading-to-military-escalation |publisher=[[Jane's Information Group]] |first=Chris |last=Suckling |title=Eritrea's alleged seizure of disputed Djiboutian territory increases likelihood of miscalculation leading to military escalation |quote=Djibouti's foreign minister, Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, alleged in a televised address on 16 June that Eritrean forces had occupied the disputed Dumaira Mountains, immediately after Qatar withdrew a 500-strong contingent of peacekeepers without notification on 14 June. |access-date=2017-06-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170625110211/http://www.janes.com/article/71617/eritrea-s-alleged-seizure-of-disputed-djiboutian-territory-increases-likelihood-of-miscalculation-leading-to-military-escalation |archive-date=2017-06-25 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Alternatively transliterated as the Dumaira Mountains.<ref name="IHS" />
 
|-
 
|[[Glorioso Islands]]
 
|'''{{FRA}}'''{{MDG}}{{COM}}
 
|''De facto'' a part of the French overseas territory of the [[French Southern and Antarctic Lands|French Southern Territories]].
 
|-
 
|[[Halaib Triangle|Hala'ib Triangle]]
 
|'''{{EGY}}'''{{SDN}}<ref>{{cite news|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3120/is_200407/ai_n7779206 |title=Why are Egypt and Sudan in dispute over the Hala'ib Triangle?(Quizzical)(Brief Article) |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071113145252/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3120/is_200407/ai_n7779206 |archive-date=2007-11-13 }}</ref>
 
|Previously under joint administration; Egypt now maintains full ''de facto'' control of the Hala'ib Triangle. The boundaries claimed by Egypt and Sudan both include the Hala'ib Triangle. The area of [[Bir Tawil]] close to the triangle is unclaimed by both countries.
 
|-
 
|[[Ilemi Triangle]]
 
|'''{{KEN}}'''{{SSD}}
 
|''De facto'' controlled by Kenya. Ethiopian tribes have used and made raids in the land, but the Ethiopian government has never made a claim to it, agreeing it was Sudanese in 1902, 1907 and 1972 treaties.<ref>{{Cite book|title=African Boundaries: A Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopedia|last=Brownlie|first=Ian|author-link=Ian Brownlie|publisher=Institute for International Affairs, Hurst and Co.|year=1979|pages=867–884; 917–921}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/ethio_0066-2127_2004_num_20_1_1065|title=The Ilemi Triangle in: Annales d'Éthiopie. Volume 20, année 2004|last=Collins|first=Robert O.|year=2004|pages=5–12|access-date=2011-06-17}}</ref><ref>The [[National Geographic Society]] in recent works has included an Ethiopian claim, later removed due to lack of sources. The [[World Factbook]] confirms that Ethiopia does not claim the territory</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[KaNgwane]] and [[Ingwavuma]]
 
|'''{{ZAF}}'''{{SWZ}}
 
|Eswatini claims territories which it states were confiscated during colonial times.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irinnews.org/Report/44343/ESWATINI-Land-claim-falls-on-deaf-SA-ears|title=ESWATINI: Land claim falls on deaf SA ears|website=IRIN|date=June 16, 2003|access-date=March 7, 2012}}</ref> The area claimed by Eswatini is the former [[bantustan]] of [[KaNgwane]], which now forms the northern parts of [[Jozini Local Municipality|Jozini]] and [[uMhlabuyalingana Local Municipality|uMhlabuyalingana]] local municipalities in [[KwaZulu-Natal]], and the southern part of [[Nkomazi Local Municipality|Nkomazi]], the southeastern part of [[Umjindi Local Municipality|Umjindi]] and the far eastern part of [[Albert Luthuli Local Municipality|Albert Luthuli]] local municipalities in [[Mpumalanga]].
 
|-
 
|[[Koalou]] village and surrounding area
 
|{{BFA}}{{BEN}}
 
|Burkina Faso and Benin retain a border dispute at this 68&nbsp;km<sup>2</sup> triangular area of land near the tripoint border with [[Togo]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=http://lefaso.net/spip.php?article31781|title=Différend frontalier Burkina-Bénin : Kourou/Koalou déclarée zone (...) - leFaso.net, l'actualité au Burkina Faso|website=lefaso.net|language=fr|access-date=2017-10-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/benin/|title=CIA World Factbook – Benin|access-date=12 October 2017}}</ref> In a 2008 meeting, it was declared that the territory was a neutral zone, neither Burkinabé nor Beninese, making it technically unclaimed.<ref name=":0" /> According to the UN Refugee Agency in 2015, there were issues of children being born stateless in the area, however a Beninese civil registration office has taken control of registering births in the area.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://data2.unhcr.org/ar/documents/download/54204|title=UNHCR Newsletter – January–August 2015|page=5|access-date=12 October 2017}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|Kpéaba village area (near [[Sipilou]]/Siquita)
 
|'''{{CIV}}'''{{GIN}}
 
|The Guinean military occupied this village for 1 month from January to February 2013, before withdrawing in preparation of talks.<ref>{{cite news|title=Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire Border Dispute Reportedly Resurfaces |url=http://guineenews.org/2014/03/le-conflit-frontalier-entre-la-guinee-et-la-cote-divoire-autour-de-kpeaba-refait-surface/ |work=Guinee News |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140308072638/http://guineenews.org/2014/03/le-conflit-frontalier-entre-la-guinee-et-la-cote-divoire-autour-de-kpeaba-refait-surface/ |archive-date=2014-03-08 }}</ref> In December 2016, Guinea soldiers and civilians attacked the village, killing 1 and wounding several others, before returning to their side of the border.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.jeuneafrique.com/387125/politique/cote-divoire-civil-tue-militaires-guineens-a-kpeaba-louest-pays/|title=Côte d'Ivoire : un civil tué par des militaires guinéens à Kpéaba dans l'ouest du pays, la Guinée dément – JeuneAfrique.com|date=2016-12-23|work=JeuneAfrique.com|access-date=2017-10-12|language=fr-FR}}</ref> According to the Guinean Minister of Defence, the Guinean army had been asked not to send any soldiers to this area and had no involvement in this incident.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20161223-cote-ivoire-guinee-kpeaba-attaque-civil-soldat-militaire-ministre|title=Côte d'Ivoire/Guinée: un ancien litige frontalier ressurgit à Kpéaba - RFI|work=RFI Afrique|access-date=2017-10-12|language=fr-FR}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|Area near [[Logoba]]/[[Moyo District]]
 
|'''{{SSD}}{{UGA}}'''
 
|A 1914 British colonial order defined the international border based on the tribal boundary between the [[Kuku people|Kuku]] of Kajokeji (South Sudan) and the [[Madi people|Ma'di]] of Moyo (Uganda). However, the border was never formally demarcated.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Leonardi|first=Cherry|date=2020-07-13|title=Patchwork States: The Localization of State Territoriality on the South Sudan–Uganda Border, 1914–2014*|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtz052|journal=Past & Present|volume=248|issue=1|pages=209–258|doi=10.1093/pastj/gtz052|issn=0031-2746}}</ref> In 2014, a conflict was triggered by the Ugandan national census when Ugandan officials were detained by South Sudan authorities.<ref>{{Cite web|title=South Sudan – Uganda Relations|url=https://www.accord.org.za/conflict-trends/south-sudan-uganda-relations/|access-date=2021-06-02|website=ACCORD|language=en-GB}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|Border near [[Chiengi]], [[Luapula Province border dispute|Lunchinda-Pweto Province]]
 
|'''{{ZMB}}'''{{flag|Democratic Republic of Congo}}
 
|Zambia and Congo have different interpretations of the borders set out in an 1894 treaty between British settlers and [[Leopold II of Belgium|Leopold II]], [[Monarchy of Belgium|King of the Belgians]]. There have been incidents between armies of both countries in 1996, 2006, and 2016. In March 2020, Zambia deployed troops on the Congolese side of the border.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Tshiamala|first=Stanis Bujakera|date=2020-08-27|title=Zambia & DRC’s disputed territory in Tanganyika since colonial era|url=https://www.theafricareport.com/38156/zambia-drcs-disputed-territory-in-tanganyika-since-colonial-era/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-06-02|website=The Africa Report.com|language=en-US}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Mayotte]]
 
|'''{{FRA}}'''{{COM}}<ref name="CIA" />
 
|Under the [[2009 Mahoran status referendum|2009 referendum]], the population supported becoming an overseas department of France, and so became one on March 31, 2011.
 
|-
 
|Islands in [[Mbamba Bay]], [[Lake Nyasa]]
 
|'''{{TZA}}'''{{MWI}}
 
|Lundo Is. and Mbambo Is. are claimed as part of the lake, as Malawi claims to the shore based on 1890 Anglo-German treaty. See [[Lake Malawi#Tanzania–Malawi dispute|Tanzania–Malawi dispute]].
 
|-
 
|[[Mbañie Island]], [[Cocotiers]] and [[Congas Island]]
 
|{{GAB}}{{GNQ}}
 
|Contested islands in [[Corisco Bay]], valuable for their oil.<ref name="Senat France">''[http://www.senat.fr/ga/ga53/ga532.html Compte rendu du déplacement d'une délégation du groupe interparlementaire France-Afrique centrale au Gabon, en Guinée équatoriale et à Sao Tomé-et-Principe]'', parliamentary report of the [[Senate of France]], 2003.</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.irinnews.org/news/2004/01/23/un-mediates-dispute-over-corisco-bay-islands|title=UN mediates dispute over Corisco Bay islands|date=2004-01-23|work=IRIN|access-date=2017-10-12|language=en}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Migingo Island]] vicinity, and, farther north, the vicinity of the islands of [[Lolwe]], [[Oyasi]], [[Remba]], [[Ringiti]] and [[Sigulu]], all a maritime rights dispute in [[Lake Victoria]].
 
|'''{{KEN}}{{UGA}}'''
 
|In 2009, Migingo Island became a disputed territory when Uganda raised its national flag. The dispute is related to fishing rights in Lake Victoria. Before 2004 the island was uninhabited, but now is home to Kenyans and Ugandans fisherpeople.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Kenya, Uganda to demarcate entire border|url=https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/news/east-africa/kenya-uganda-to-demarcate-entire-border-1416154|access-date=2021-06-03|website=The East African|language=en}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|Several islands in the [[Congo River]]
 
|'''{{COG}}{{flag|Democratic Republic of Congo}}'''
 
|Most of the boundary in the Congo River remains undefined.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Disputes – international - The World Factbook|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/disputes-international|access-date=2021-06-03|website=www.cia.gov}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|Several islands in the [[Ntem River]]
 
|'''{{CMR}}{{GNQ}}'''
 
|
 
|-
 
|Several villages near the [[Okpara River]]
 
|'''{{BEN}}{{NGA}}'''
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Orange River]] border line
 
|{{NAM}}{{SAF}}
 
|Namibia claims the border lies along the middle of the river, while South Africa claims it lies along the north bank.
 
|-
 
|The [[Rufunzo Valley]] and [[Sabanerwa]]
 
|'''{{RWA}}{{BDI}}'''
 
|In 1965, river Kanyaru changed course due to heavy rains. Burundians point to Rwandan farmers for contributing to the change of course by rice-growing.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2006-01-31|title=Tension increases in ongoing land dispute|url=https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/report/57979/burundi-rwanda-tension-increases-ongoing-land-dispute|access-date=2021-06-03|website=The New Humanitarian|language=en}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Rukwanzi Island]] and the [[Semliki River]] valley
 
|'''{{flag|Democratic Republic of Congo}}{{UGA}}'''
 
|The dispute is related to fishing rights in Lake Edward and Lake Albert.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Gitta|first=Alex|last2=Lubega|first2=Emmanuel|last3=Natalis|first3=Veronica|date=27 December 2018|title=Contested waters: Conflict on Africa's Great Lakes {{!}} DW {{!}} 27.08.2018|url=https://www.dw.com/en/contested-waters-conflict-on-africas-great-lakes/a-45245425|url-status=live|access-date=2021-06-03|website=DW.COM|language=en-GB}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Sindabezi Island]]
 
|'''{{ZMB}}'''{{ZWE}}<ref>{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IDE5DwAAQBAJ&q=sindabezi+island+dispute&pg=PA190 | title=The Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the European Union (EU): Regionalism and External Influence| isbn=9783319453309| last1=Muntschick| first1=Johannes| date=2017-10-09}}</ref>
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Socotra Governorate|Socotra Archipelago]]
 
|'''{{YEM}}{{SOM}}'''
 
|Somalia, while not formally claiming the archipelago, asked for the [[United Nations]] to look into "the status" of the Socotran archipelago (i.e., whether or not it "should" belong to Yemen or rather Somalia).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hiiraan.com/news2/2010/oct/for_first_time_in_history_somalia_claims_socotra_as_its_own.aspx|title=For First Time in History, Somalia Claims Socotra as Its Own|access-date=5 October 2014}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Tromelin Island]]
 
|'''{{FRA}}'''{{MUS}}
 
|''De facto'' a part of the French overseas territory of the [[French Southern and Antarctic Lands|French Southern Territories]].
 
|-
 
|[[Wadi Halfa]] Salient
 
|'''{{EGY}}'''{{SDN}}
 
|Most of the disputed territory were villages flooded by [[Lake Nasser]] after the construction of the [[Aswan Dam]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Jacobs|first=Franks|date=2010-07-23|title=396 - "You take it - No, you take it": the Bir Tawil Trapezoid|url=https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/396-you-take-it-no-you-take-it-the-bir-tawil-trapezoid|url-status=live|access-date=2021-06-03|website=Big Think|language=en}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Western Sahara]]
 
|'''{{MOR}}{{SADR}} (''[[Polisario Front]]'')'''
 
|Territory controlled by Morocco (80%) since 1975 outside of the international law, and classified by the UN as a [[United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories|Non-Self-Governing Territory]].
 
|}
 
===Asia===
 
[[File:South China Sea claims map.jpg|thumb|250px|Territorial claims in the [[South China Sea]]|link=Special:FilePath/South_China_Sea_claims_map.jpg]][[File:India disputed areas map.svg|thumb|250px|Map showing [[List of disputed territories of India|disputed territories of India]]|link=Special:FilePath/India_disputed_areas_map.svg]][[File:AZ-qa-location-en.svg|thumb|260px|The final borders of the [[Nagorno-Karabakh conflict]] after the 1994 ceasefire was signed|link=Special:FilePath/AZ-qa-location-en.svg]]
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Claimants
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|[[Ashmore and Cartier Islands]]
 
|'''{{AUS}}'''{{IDN}}
 
|Indonesia argues that the islands, known in Indonesian as ''Kepulauan Pasir'', were first discovered and inhabited by local fishermen from [[Lesser Sunda Islands]], which were then part of [[Dutch East Indies]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/indian-ocean/ai.htm|title=Ashmore and Cartier Islands [AU]|last=Pike|first=John|website=www.globalsecurity.org|language=en|access-date=2018-01-14}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.antaranews.com/berita/43871/fakta-sejarah-tunjukkan-pulau-pasir-milik-indonesia|title=Fakta Sejarah Tunjukkan Pulau Pasir Milik Indonesia - ANTARA News|last=antaranews.com|work=Antara News|access-date=2018-01-14|language=id-ID}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.merdeka.com/politik/pengakuan-kepemilikan-australia-atas-pulau-pasir-masih-lemah-39c4tjh.html|title=Pengakuan Kepemilikan Australia Atas Pulau Pasir Masih Lemah {{!}} merdeka.com|last=Merdeka.com|work=merdeka.com|access-date=2018-01-14|language=en}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Arsal|Aarsal]], [[Deir El Aachayer]], [[Kfar Qouq]], [[Mazraat Deir al-Ashayer]], [[Qaa]], [[Qasr, Lebanon|Qasr]] and [[Tuffah, Lebanon|Tuffah]]
 
|'''{{LBN}}'''{{SYR}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Shatt al-Arab]]
 
|{{IRN}}{{IRQ}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Abu Musa]]
 
|{{nowrap|'''{{IRN}}'''<br>{{ARE}}}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Greater and Lesser Tunbs]]
 
|'''{{IRN}}'''{{ARE}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Nagorno-Karabakh|Nagorno-Karabakh region]]
 
|''{{flag|Artsakh}}''{{ARM}}''{{AZE}}''
 
|Internationally recognized as part of [[Azerbaijan]],<ref>{{cite web | url =https://www.un.org/press/en/2008/ga10693.doc.htm|title=General Assembly adopts resolution reaffirming territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, demanding withdrawal of all Armenian forces|publisher=United Nations| date=14 March 2008| access-date =23 Dec 2016}}</ref> de facto controlled by the [[Republic of Artsakh]] supported by [[Armenia]].
 
|-
 
|Part of [[Syunik Province]]
 
|'''{{AZE}}'''{{ARM}}
 
|Internationally recognized as part of [[Armenia]], forces from [[Azerbaijan]] took control of a small part of Armenia's Syunik province on 12 May 2021, claiming the occupied area.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/292825/Pashinyan_Azerbaijanis_have_brought_fake_maps_to_Syunik|title=Pashinyan: Azerbaijanis have brought fake maps to Syunik|publisher=PanARMENIAN|date=13 May 2021|access-date=13 May 2021}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Azad Kashmir]] and [[Gilgit-Baltistan]]
 
|'''{{flagicon|Pakistan}} [[Pakistan]]'''{{flagicon|India}} [[India]]
 
|Administered by Pakistan and claimed by India. Part of the [[Kashmir conflict]].
 
|-
 
|[[Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)|Jammu and Kashmir]]
 
|'''{{IND}}'''{{PAK}}
 
|Part of the [[Kashmir conflict]]. Both India and Pakistan claim the former independent princely state of [[Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)|Jammu and Kashmir]], leading to the [[Indo-Pakistani war of 1947]]. A UN-mediated ceasefire put a halt to the conflict in January 1949. The UN resolution called for both the countries to demilitarise the region, following which a plebiscite would be held. However, no demilitarisation plan acceptable to both the countries could be agreed. The countries fought two further wars in [[Indo-Pakistani war of 1965|1965]] and [[Indo-Pakistani war of 1971|1971]]. Following the latter war, the countries reached the [[Simla Agreement]], agreeing on a [[Line of Control]] between their respective regions and committing to a peaceful resolution of the dispute through [[India-Pakistan relations|bilateral negotiations]]. An [[Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir|armed insurgency]] broke out in 1989 in the Indian administered part of Kashmir, demanding "independence". Pakistan is [[Pakistan and state sponsored terrorism|believed to provide arms]] and training to the militants.<ref>{{citation |last=Korbel |first=Josef |author-link=Josef Korbel |title=Danger in Kashmir |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1966}}</ref><ref>{{citation |first=Victoria |last=Schofield |author-link=Victoria Schofield |title=Kashmir in Conflict |publisher=I. B. Taurus & Co |location=London and New York |year=2003 |orig-year=First published in 2000 |isbn=978-1860648984 |url=https://archive.org/details/00book584554548 }}</ref><ref>{{citation |first=Sumantra |last=Bose |author-link=Sumantra Bose |title=Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-674-01173-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/00book939526581 }}</ref><ref>{{citation |last=Varshney |first=Ashutosh |author-link=Ashutosh Varshney |chapter=Three Compromised Nationalisms: Why Kashmir has been a Problem |editor=Raju G. C. Thomas |title=Perspectives on Kashmir: the roots of conflict in South Asia |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xrPtAAAAMAAJ |year=1992 |publisher=Westview Press |isbn=978-0-8133-8343-9 |pages=191–234|chapter-url=https://apps.cndls.georgetown.edu/courses/rudolph/g238/files/Varshney-_1992-Why-Kashmir.pdf}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Aksai Chin]]
 
|'''{{CHN}}'''{{IND}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|-
 
|[[David Gareja monastery complex]] boundary dispute
 
|'''{{GEO}}{{AZE}}'''
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Doi Pha Hom Pok National Park|Doi Lang]]
 
|'''{{MYA}}'''{{THA}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Fasht Ad Dibal]] and [[Qit'at Jaradah]]
 
|'''{{BHR}}{{QAT}}'''
 
|These were not included in the 2001 [[International Court of Justice]] judgement, as low-tide elevations.
 
|-
 
|Several areas in the [[Fergana Valley]]
 
|'''{{KGZ}}{{TJK}}{{UZB}}'''
 
|[[Kyrgyzstan]]: Barak is a tiny Kyrgyz village in the Fergana Valley region (where Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan meet). In August 1999, the area around Barak was occupied by Uzbekistan. Barak became a ''de facto'' enclave only 1.5&nbsp;km from the shifted main border.<ref name="ea">{{cite web|title=Kyrgyz In Exclave In Uzbekistan Want To Relocate To Kyrgyzstan|date=12 May 2011|url=http://www.eurasianet.org/print/63475|publisher=EurasiaNet|access-date=2014-03-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140319135155/http://www.eurasianet.org/print/63475|archive-date=19 March 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="trend">{{cite web|title=Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan intensify work on delimitation and demarcation of state border|date=18 Feb 2014|first=Demir|last=Azizov|url=http://en.trend.az/regions/casia/uzbekistan/2243118.html|access-date=2014-03-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140319133327/http://en.trend.az/regions/casia/uzbekistan/2243118.html|archive-date=19 March 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Продолжаются споры по линии прохождения узбеко-кыргызской границы. Неделимы Сох, Барак и Гавасай |url=http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1014330840 |date=22 Feb 2002 |author=Борис ГОЛОВАНОВ |publisher=Вечерний Бишкек |access-date=2014-02-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140319134929/http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1014330840 |archive-date=19 March 2014 |url-status=live }}</ref> ([http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=40.66667,72.76667&z=12&t=K&marker0=40.66667%2C72.76667 Map]) In August 2018 Kyrgyz and Uzbek authorities agreed to a land swap that would eliminate the exclave.  The exchange process may take up to two years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-uzbekistan-agree-to-work-on-land-swap-near-border/29435146.html|title=Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan Agree To Work On Land Swap Near Border|website=RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty|language=en|access-date=2019-01-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190315023547/https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-uzbekistan-agree-to-work-on-land-swap-near-border/29435146.html|archive-date=2019-03-15|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Tajikistan]]: There are three Tajik exclaves, all of them in the Fergana Valley. One of them, the village of [[Sarvan, Tajikistan|Sarvan]], is surrounded by Uzbek territory, whereas the remaining two, the village of [[Vorukh]] and a small settlement near the Kyrgyz railway station of [[Kayragach, Batken|Kairagach]], are each surrounded by Kyrgyz territory. [[Uzbekistan]]: There are four Uzbek exclaves, all inside Kyrgyz territory in the Fergana Valley. Two of them are the towns of [[So‘x District|Sokh]] and [[Shohimardon|Shakhimardan]] and the other two the tiny territories of [[Regions of Uzbekistan#Enclaves and exclaves|Chon-Qora]] and [[Batken Region#Enclaves and exclaves|Jani-Ayil]]. There may be a fifth Uzbek exclave inside of Kyrgyzstan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cominganarchy.com/2005/12/23/enclaves-iii-the-fergana-valley/|title=Enclaves III: The Fergana Valley|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017233031/http://cominganarchy.com/2005/12/23/enclaves-iii-the-fergana-valley/ |archive-date=October 17, 2013 }}</ref> Most of the border in the area is still not demarcated.
 
|-
 
|[[Isfara Valley]]
 
|{{KGZ}}'''{{TJK}}'''
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Ambalat]]
 
|'''{{IDN}}{{MYS}}'''
 
|
 
|-
 
|38&nbsp;km stretch of border at pass of the [[Kabaw Valley|Kabaw]]<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/news/boundary_news/?itemno=28745&rehref=%2Fibru%2Fnews%2F&resubj=Boundary+news+Headlines|title=Myanmar aims to complete border demarcation|work=IBRU Boundary News|date=August 22, 2016|access-date=January 9, 2017}}</ref>
 
|{{IND}}{{MMR}}
 
|India's government acknowledges that its border with Myanmar is not yet demarcated, but does not consider there to be a "dispute".<ref name="business-standard.com">[https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/strip-maps-covering-98-pc-of-indo-nepal-boundary-jointly-finalised-by-two-countries-govt-119062601295_1.html]</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Golan Heights]]
 
|'''{{ISR}}'''{{LBN}} (only claims [[Shebaa Farms]])
 
{{SYR}}
 
|Syrian territory captured by Israel in 1967 (the Six-Day War), and unilaterally annexed by Israel in 1981. In 2008, a plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly voted by 161–1 in favor of a motion on the "occupied Syrian Golan" that reaffirmed support for UN Resolution 497; United Nations, December 5, 2008). During the Syrian civil war period, Syrian Arab Republic had lost direct control of the Eastern Golan areas and retreated from cease-fire line with Israel (in favor of various rebel and Jihadist groups), though did regain the area in 2018.
 
|-
 
|[[Israel]] within the [[Green Line (Israel)|Green Line]]
 
|'''{{ISR}}'''{{flagicon|Palestine}} [[State of Palestine|Palestine]]
 
|See ''[[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]''
 
|-
 
|[[West Bank]] and [[East Jerusalem]]
 
|'''{{ISR}}'''
 
::{{small|{{Flag|Israel|name=Civilian rule by Israel proper}} applied in East Jerusalem}}
 
::{{small|{{Flag|Israel|tsahal|name=Military occupation}} has jurisdiction over all matters in Area C and security-related matters in Area B}}
 
  
'''{{PLE}}'''
+
The Paris Agreement was opened for signature on 22 April 2016 ([[Earth Day]]) at a ceremony in New York. After the European Union ratified the agreement, sufficient countries had ratified the Agreement responsible for enough of the [[greenhouse gas emissions|world's greenhouse gases]] for the Agreement to enter into force on 4 November 2016. As of July 2021, 191 members of the [[United Nations Framework  Convention on Climate Change]] (UNFCCC) are parties to the agreement. Of the six UNFCCC member states which have not [[Ratification|ratified]] the agreement, the only major emitters are Iran, Turkey, and Iraq (though the president has approved that country's accession). The United States withdrew from the Agreement in 2020, but rejoined in 2021.
  
{{small|has jurisdiction over all matters in Area A and civil matters in Area B}}
+
The Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal is to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below {{convert|2|C-change}} above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to {{convert|1.5|C-change}}, recognising that this would substantially reduce the [[Effects of climate change|impacts of climate change]]. Emissions should be reduced as soon as possible and reach [[net-zero emissions|net-zero]] in the second half of the 21st century. It aims to increase the ability of parties to adapt to climate change impacts, and mobilise sufficient finance. Under the Agreement, each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on its contributions. No mechanism forces a country to set specific [[emissions target]]s, but each target should go beyond previous targets. In contrast to the 1997 [[Kyoto Protocol]], the distinction between developed and developing countries is blurred, so that the latter also have to submit plans for emission reductions.
|See ''[[Israeli occupation of the West Bank]]''
 
|-
 
|[[Kalapani, Uttarakhand|Kalapani]] region, the smaller [[Susta|Susta River]] dispute and the smaller still [[Antudanda]] and [[Nawalparasi]] disputes
 
|'''{{IND}}'''{{NPL}}
 
|Kalapani is administered by India while [[Susta]] is administered by Nepal. The few remaining border disagreements with Nepal since delineation was announced 98% complete in 2019.<ref>Territorial disputes of India and Nepal</ref> See [[Territorial disputes of India and Nepal]].
 
|-
 
|[[Artsvashen]] exclave of [[Gegharkunik province]], de jure part of Armenia; [[Karki, Azerbaijan|Karki]] exclave of [[Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic]], [[Yuxarı Əskipara|Yukhari Askipara]] and [[Barkhudarli]], both exclaves of [[Qazakh Rayon]] de jure part of Azerbaijan; "[[Yaradullu]]" is controlled by Azerbaijan along with occupying the much larger de jure Armenian territory surrounding it.
 
|''{{ARM}}{{AZE}}''
 
|Azerbaijan and Armenia have controlled these areas as part of the wider [[Nagorno-Karabakh conflict]].
 
|-
 
|[[Khuriya Muriya Islands]]
 
|'''{{OMN}}'''{{YEM}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Korea|Korean Peninsula]] north of the [[Military Demarcation Line]]
 
|'''{{PRK}}'''{{KOR}}
 
|The Democratic People's Republic of Korea administers North Korea, but Article 1 of the [[s:Constitution of North Korea (1972)|Constitution of North Korea]] reads: "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an independent socialist State representing the interests of all the Korean people." The Republic of Korea administers South Korea, but Article 3 of the [[s:Constitution of South Korea|Constitution of South Korea]] reads: "The territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean peninsula and its adjacent islands."
 
|-
 
|[[Korea|Korean Peninsula]] south of the [[Military Demarcation Line]]
 
|'''{{KOR}}'''{{PRK}}
 
|The Democratic People's Republic of Korea administers North Korea, but Article 1 of the [[s:Constitution of North Korea (1972)|Constitution of North Korea]] reads: "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an independent socialist State representing the interests of all the Korean people." The Republic of Korea administers South Korea, but Article 3 of the [[s:Constitution of South Korea|Constitution of South Korea]] reads: "The territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean peninsula and its adjacent islands."
 
|-
 
|South [[Sakhalin|Sakhalin/Karafuto]], [[Kuril Islands|Kuril/Chishima, and South Kuril/Chishima Islands]] (Northern Territories)<ref name="CIA" />
 
|'''{{RUS}}'''{{JPN}}
 
|After the end of [[World War II]], the [[Government of Japan|Japanese government]] abandoned its territorial claims to the [[Kuril Islands]] (except for a few islands in the south) and South Sakhalin in The [[Treaty of San Francisco]].<ref>{{Cite web|date=November 4, 2005|title=衆議院議員鈴木宗男君提出南樺太、千島列島の国際法的地位などに関する質問に対する答弁書|url=https://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_shitsumon.nsf/html/shitsumon/b163039.htm|website=衆議院 (The House of Representatives, Japan)}}</ref> However, since the [[Soviet Union]] did not sign that treaty, the Japanese government has stated that the ownership of those territories is undecided and they do not recognize the territorial claims of the Soviet Union (current the [[Russia|Russian Federation]]).<ref>{{Cite web|title=樺太略史|url=http://kabaren.org/karafutoryakushi/|website=全国樺太連盟(All Japan Federation of Karafuto)}}</ref> For this reason, these lands are shown as unowned land by any country in white color on most official maps in Japan.
 
|-
 
|[[Liancourt Rocks|Dokdo/Takeshima]]
 
|'''{{KOR}}'''{{PRK}}{{JPN}}
 
|Incorporated into Korea in 1900 but claimed by Japan in 1905. And occupied by South Korea since 1952.
 
|-
 
|Certain islands in the [[Naf River]]
 
|'''{{BGD}}{{MYA}}'''
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Noktundo]]
 
|'''{{RUS}}'''{{KOR}}
 
|In 1990, the former Soviet Union and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) signed a border treaty which made the border run through the center of the Tumen river, leaving Noktundo in Russia. South Korea refused to acknowledge the treaty.
 
|-
 
|"[[Pedra Branca dispute|Pedra Branca]]"; several islets at the eastern entrance to the [[Singapore Strait]]
 
|'''{{SGP}}'''{{MYS}}
 
|The [[International Court of Justice]] rendered its decision on 23 May 2008 that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore; sovereignty over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia. It said sovereignty over South Ledge would remain disputed until the states could determine the ownership of the territorial waters in which it is located.<ref>''Pedra Branca'' case, operative clause; {{citation|title=Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)|url=http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/index.php?pr=2026&pt=1&p1=6&p2=1&PHPSESSID=7c038bcd8cb75e026e5d43874209030d|publisher=[[International Court of Justice]]|date=23 May 2008|access-date=25 October 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080527094640/http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/index.php?pr=2026&pt=1&p1=6&p2=1&PHPSESSID=7c038bcd8cb75e026e5d43874209030d|archive-date=27 May 2008|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}. See also {{citation|title=ICJ awards Pedra Branca's sovereignty to Singapore|url=http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/349592/1/.html|publisher=[[Channel NewsAsia]]|date=23 May 2008|access-date=23 May 2008}}; {{citation|title=Court awards islet to Singapore|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7416473.stm|work=BBC News|date=23 May 2008}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|"[[Malaysia–Singapore border#Disputes|Point 20]]"; a small area of land reclaimed from the sea by [[Singapore]]
 
|'''{{SGP}}'''{{MYS}}
 
|Malaysia claims the land was reclaimed in its territorial waters.
 
|-
 
|[[O'Tangav]] area (claimed as part of [[Stung Treng Province]])
 
|'''{{LAO}}'''{{KHM}}
 
|[https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/hun-sen-set-visit-laos-discuss-border-issues]
 
|-
 
|Area near [[Preah Vihear Temple]] ([[Khao Phra Wihan National Park|Khao Phra Wihan]])
 
|'''{{THA}}'''{{KHM}}
 
|Temple complex awarded to Cambodia by an International Court of Justice ruling in 1962; "promontory" measuring 0.3&nbsp;km<sup>2</sup> immediately adjacent to temple awarded to Cambodia by ICJ ruling in 2013; both countries acknowledge continuing [[Cambodian–Thai border dispute|dispute]] over an additional 4.3&nbsp;km<sup>2</sup> immediately northwest of the 2013 ruling's area.
 
 
|-
 
|-
|[[Qaruh Island|Qaruh]] and [[Umm al Maradim Island|Umm al Maradim]]
 
|'''{{KWT}}'''{{SAU}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|Part of [[Sabah]] ([[North Borneo]])
 
|'''{{MYS}}'''{{PHL}}
 
|The Philippines retains a claim on the eastern part of Sabah (see [[North Borneo dispute]]) on the basis claimed by the [[Government of the Philippines]] that the territory is only leased by the former [[Sultanate of Sulu]] to British North Borneo Company, of which the Philippines argued that it should be the [[successor state]] of all Sulu past territories.<ref name="CIA" />
 
|-
 
|[[Saudi Arabia–United Arab Emirates border dispute]]
 
|'''{{ARE}}{{SAU}}'''
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Siachen Glacier]] and [[Saltoro Mountains|Saltoro Ridge]] area
 
|'''{{IND}}{{PAK}}'''
 
|Controlled by India after Operation Meghdoot in 1984.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://indianairforce.nic.in/content/op-meghdoot|title=OP MEGHDOOT|work=Indian Air Force|access-date=2020-09-17}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Sir Creek]]
 
|'''{{IND}}{{PAK}}'''
 
|A dispute over where in the estuary the line falls; only small areas of marsh land are disputed, but significant maritime territory is involved. It is divided mid-creek.
 
|-
 
|Parts of [[Three Pagodas Pass]]
 
|'''{{MYA}}{{THA}}'''
 
|
 
|-
 
|The islands of [[Ukatnyy]], [[Zhestky]] and [[Malyy Zhemchuzhnyy]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ewnc.org/node/3946|title=КАСПИЙСКИЙ САММИТ НЕ СОСТОЯЛСЯ|access-date=5 October 2014}}</ref>
 
|'''{{RUS}}'''{{KAZ}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Ungar-Too]] (Ungar-Tepa) mountain<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-uzbekistan-border-mountain-dispute-military-tensions/27631743.html|title=Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan Deploy Troops In Dispute Over Border Mountain |publisher=RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty|access-date=24 October 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kabar.kg/eng/society/full/16983|title=Uzbek side withdrew a police post from Ungar-Too |publisher=Kabar|access-date=24 October 2014}}</ref>
 
|{{UZB}}'''{{KGZ}}'''
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Vozrozhdeniya Island]] (now a [[peninsula]])
 
|'''{{KAZ}}{{UZB}}'''
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Limbang District]]
 
|'''{{Flag|Malaysia}}'''{{Flag|Brunei}}
 
|[[Limbang District]] was part of Brunei until it was forced to cede it to the [[Raj of Sarawak]] in 1890. Since then Brunei is divided territorially into two. It was claimed by Brunei in 1967 in order to reconnect the country. It forms the main part of the [[Brunei–Malaysia border#Disputes]]. Malaysia claimed to settle the issue in 2009, however this was disputed by Brunei.
 
 
|}
 
|}
===Europe===
+
===Membership of intermicronational organizations===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
+
[[File:MAFLAG2020.png|alt=|thumb|206x206px|''Flag of the Micronational Assembly'']]
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Claimants
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|[[Russia–Ukraine border]]
 
| rowspan="4" |{{RUS}}{{UKR}}
 
|Since 2001 Russia delays an establishment of the border with Ukraine.<ref>Woronowycz, R. ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20141104223634/http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/2001/470103.shtml Ukraine and Russia move on border delimitation].'' Kyiv Press Bureau. "[[The Ukrainian Weekly]]". 25 November 2001</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Tuzla Island]] and [[Strait of Kerch]]; [[Sarych]]
 
|The conflict arose in 2003 when the Russian authorities started to build a dam towards the island. Ukraine then established a border garrison on the island for a closer surveillance. The reason for the conflict was the fact that Tuzla island's strategic location gave Ukraine full rights over the main channel in the Strait of Kerch and, thus, the access to the [[Sea of Azov]]. The conflict was based on the division of the [[Black Sea Fleet]] and a lease agreement of the Sevastopol Naval facilities.
 
|-
 
|[[Sea of Azov]]
 
|("Mutual jurisdiction")<ref>{{cite web|url = http://people.ucalgary.ca/~amcewen/Azov-Kerch.pdf|title = Russia – Ukraine Boundary in the Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait|url-status = dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140514090446/http://people.ucalgary.ca/~amcewen/Azov-Kerch.pdf |archive-date=May 14, 2014 |first = Alec|last = McEwan}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Crimea]]
 
|In 2014, Russian Federation [[Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|annexed]] the [[Crimean peninsula]] in a [[2014 Crimean status referendum|disputed referendum]]. Russian ownership of Crimea is recognized by a minority of countries.<ref>Maria Raquel Freire, "Ukraine and the Restructuring of East-West Relations" in ''The Russian Challenge to the European Security Environment'' (ed. Roger E. Kanet), p. 201.</ref> The [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262|General Assembly Resolution 68/262]] by votes 100 "in favor", 11 "against", 58 "abstained" and 24 absentions noted that Crimea was part of Ukraine.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/03/464812-backing-ukraines-territorial-integrity-un-assembly-declares-crimea-referendum|title=Backing Ukraine's territorial integrity, UN Assembly declares Crimea referendum invalid|website=United Nations News|date=March 27, 2014}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Aegean dispute]], [[Imia/Kardak]]
 
|{{GRC}}{{TUR}}
 
|Broad number of delimitation disputes about a.o. national airspace, territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. Includes [[Imia/Kardak]] dispute.
 
|-
 
|[[Mont Blanc#Ownership of the summit|Mont Blanc summit dispute]]
 
|{{FRA}}{{ITA}}
 
|France asserts that the principal peaks on the [[Mont Blanc massif]]&mdash;[[Dôme du Goûter]], [[Punta Helbronner]], and [[Mont Blanc]] lie in French territory, while Italy asserts that the summits are shared.<ref>{{cite web|author=Michael Day|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mont-blanc-controversy-french-suffer-a-fit-of-pique-as-italys-prime-minister-reclaims-europes-10351349.html|title=Mont Blanc controversy: French suffer a fit of pique as Italy's Prime Minister 'reclaims' Europe's highest mountain|website=Independent|date=June 28, 2015}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Carlingford Lough]] and [[Lough Foyle]] boundary dispute
 
|{{IRL}}{{UK}}
 
|[[Lough Foyle]] divides [[County Donegal]], Republic of Ireland, and [[County Londonderry]], Northern Ireland. [[Carlingford Lough]] divides [[County Louth]], Republic of Ireland, and [[County Down]], Northern Ireland.<ref>{{cite book|first1=Dimitry |last1=Kochenov |first2= Elena|last2= Basheska|chapter =Introduction: Good Neighbourliness Inside and Outside the Union|title = Good Neighbourliness in the European Legal Context|publisher = Brill Nijhoff|date= 2005|page = 4|chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=kSdACgAAQBAJ&pg=PA4 |isbn = 9789004299788}}</ref><ref>"Ireland-United Kingdom: Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough" in ''Border Disputes: A Global Encyclopedia'', Vol. 1 (ed. Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly, ABC-CLIO, 2015).</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Disputed status of Gibraltar|Gibraltar]]
 
|'''{{UK}}'''{{ESP}}<ref name="CIA" />
 
|Dispute over the interpretation of the [[Treaty of Utrecht]] and the location of the border.
 
|-
 
|[[Rockall]] Island
 
|{{IRL}}{{UK}}{{DNK}}{{ISL}}
 
|Disputed uninhabited island in the North Atlantic Ocean.<ref>{{cite news|date=8 June 2019|title=Who owns Rockall? A history of disputes over a tiny Atlantic island|work=The Irish Times|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/who-owns-rockall-a-history-of-disputes-over-a-tiny-atlantic-island-1.3919668|access-date=7 February 2021}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Dollart|Dollart bay]]
 
|{{DEU}}{{NED}}
 
|The exact course of the border through this bay is disputed,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.geodaten.niedersachsen.de/viewer_dienste/layerstruktur/layer-nordsee---ems-dollart-vertrag-25327.html |title=Layer Nordsee - Ems-Dollart-Vertrag |language=de |publisher=[[Lower Saxony|State of Lower Saxony]] |access-date=3 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180104073144/http://www.geodaten.niedersachsen.de/viewer_dienste/layerstruktur/layer-nordsee---ems-dollart-vertrag-25327.html |archive-date=2018-01-04 |url-status=dead }}</ref> yet the countries have [[Agree to disagree|agreed to disagree]] by signing a treaty in 1960.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBV0005343/1978-07-01 |title=Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland tot [...] van de samenwerking in de Eemsmonding (Eems-Dollardverdrag), 's-Gravenhage, 08-04-1960 |language=nl |publisher=[[Government of the Netherlands]] |date=1 July 1978 |access-date=3 January 2018}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Lake Constance#International borders|Lake Constance]]
 
|{{DEU}}{{AUT}}{{CHE}}
 
|Switzerland holds the view that the border runs through the middle of the lake.
 
  
 +
====Micronational Assembly====
 +
[[Indradhanush]] joined the Micronational Assembly being accepted to the organization by its members, initially'','' as an observer nation and was later promoted as a full member nation on 29 March 2021. [[Indradhanush]] became an important part of the organization especially from its professional point of view and created the MID Act<ref>Chandrachur Basu [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n3vnz5nO4HnKfZnvJN4s5JE9dd00kVOmO9A6WtiDPxA/edit?usp=sharing MID Act]</ref> within the organization. [[Indradhanush]] also served as the Minister of MicroWiki Improvement.
  
Austria is of the opinion that the contentious area belongs to all the states on its banks.
 
 
Germany holds an ambiguous opinion.
 
|-
 
|[[Olivenza]] and [[Vila Real (Olivença)|Vila Real]] (including the [[municipality]] of [[Táliga]])
 
|'''{{ESP}}'''{{PRT}}
 
|In 1801, during the [[War of the Oranges]], Spain, with French military support, occupied the territory of Olivenza (in [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]] ''Olivença''). During the [[Treaty of Vienna (1815)]], the signatory powers (including Spain) agreed with the Portuguese arguments concerning its claim on Olivença but Spain never fulfilled its duty of giving the city of Olivença and its territory back to Portugal.
 
|-
 
|[[Croatia-Serbia border dispute]]
 
| rowspan="3" |{{HRV}}{{SRB}}
 
|Limited areas along the [[Danube]]
 
Parts of [[Osijek-Baranja County|Osijek-Baranja]] and [[Vukovar-Syrmia County|Vukovar-Syrmia Counties]] and [[West Bačka District|West]] and [[South Bačka District]]s
 
|-
 
|[[Island of Šarengrad]]
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Island of Vukovar]]
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Croatia-Slovenia border disputes]]
 
| rowspan="3" |{{SVN}}{{HRV}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Gulf of Piran]]
 
|An agreement was signed (and ratified by Croatia's parliament on 20 November 2009) to pursue binding arbitration to both the land and maritime portions of this continuing dispute.
 
In 2015 collusion between the Slovenian judge on the arbitration panel and a representative from the Slovenian government was uncovered. The Croatian [[Croatian Parliament|Sabor]] voted to withdraw from the arbitration, citing allegations of significant breaches of arbitration rules by Slovenia as the reason.
 
 
Despite this the arbitration tribunal continued its work, issuing a ruling in 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2175|title= Arbitration Between The Republic of Croatia and The Republic of Slovenia |publisher=Permanent Court of Arbitration|date = 29 June 2017}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|Military complex near [[Sveta Gera]]
 
|The complex is in the area of [[Žumberak/Gorjanci]]
 
|-
 
|[[Prevlaka]]
 
|'''{{HRV}}'''{{MNE}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Sastavci]]
 
|'''{{SRB}}'''{{BIH}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|Tip of the [[Klek (peninsula)|Klek peninsula]], and the islands of [[Veliki Školj]] and [[Mali Školj]] (near [[Neum]])
 
|'''{{HRV}}'''{{BIH}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Near [[Bousignies-sur-Roc]]
 
|{{FRA}}{{BEL}}
 
|In 2021 a Belgian farmer moved a [[Boundary marker|stone]] demarking the Franco-Belgian border approximately two meters into French territory.  The farmer was ordered to move the stone back by the local government.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Schaverien |first1=Anna |title=A Farmer Moved a 200-Year-Old Stone, and the French-Belgian Border |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/world/europe/france-belgium-border-moved.html?smid=url-share |website=The New York Times |access-date=5 May 2021 |date=5 May 2021}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|}
 
===North and Central America===
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Claimants
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|[[Isla de Aves|Aves Island]]
 
|'''{{VEN}}'''{{DMA}}
 
|[[Dominica]] abandoned the claim to the island in 2007, but continues to claim the adjacent seas, as do some neighboring states.
 
|-
 
|[[Bajo Nuevo Bank]]
 
|'''{{COL}}'''{{NIC}}{{JAM}}{{USA}}
 
|[[Honduras]] has recognized the sovereignty of Colombia; other claimants have not. On November 19, 2012, the [[International Court of Justice]] (ICJ) ruled that Colombia has sovereignty over Bajo Nuevo.<ref name="ICJCOL">{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/124/17162.pdf |title=Territorial and maritime dispute (Nicaragua vs Colombia) | year = 2012 | access-date = 2012-11-27 | author=[[International Court of Justice]]}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|Southern half of [[Belize]]
 
|'''{{BLZ}}'''{{GTM}}
 
|[[Guatemala]] formerly [[Guatemalan claim to Belizean territory|claimed all of Belize]].
 
|-
 
|[[Conejo Island]]
 
|'''{{HND}}'''{{SLV}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Navassa Island]]<ref name="CIA" />
 
|'''{{USA}}'''{{HTI}} ''''''
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Sapodilla Cay]]
 
|'''{{BLZ}}'''{{GTM}}{{HND}}
 
|Guatemala formerly claimed all of Belize.
 
|-
 
|[[Serranilla Bank]]
 
|'''{{COL}}'''{{HON}}{{NIC}}{{USA}}
 
|[[Jamaica]] has recognized the sovereignty of Colombia; other claimants have not. On November 19, 2012, the [[International Court of Justice]] (ICJ) ruled that Colombia has sovereignty over Serranilla.<ref name="ICJCOL" />
 
|-
 
|Oyster Pond
 
|'''{{NLD}}'''{{FRA}}
 
|Claimed by both The [[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] (on behalf of [[Sint Maarten]]) and [[France]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://nos.nl/artikel/2142774-nederland-en-frankrijk-ruzien-over-grens-sint-maarten.html |title=Nederland en Frankrijk ruziën over grens Sint Maarten | date= November 12, 2016 | access-date= April 10, 2020 | language= nl}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.soualigapost.com/en/news/6397/coop%C3%A9ration/border-oyster-pond-reason-behind-another-conflict |title=The border at Oyster Pond, the reason behind another conflict | date= November 2, 2016 | access-date= April 10, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.dclportal.dreamhosters.com/news/latest-news/9228-negotiations-on-oyster-pond-border-to-commence-late-2019 |title=Negotiations on Oyster Pond border to commence late 2019 | date= August 15, 2019 | access-date= April 10, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://antilliaansdagblad.com/sint-maarten/20126-frankrijk-belemmert-herbouw-oyster-pond |title=Frankrijk belemmert herbouw Oyster Pond | date= September 15, 2019 | access-date= April 10, 2020 | language= nl}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Hans Island]]
 
|{{CAN}}{{Flagicon|DEN}} [[Danish Realm|Denmark]] ({{GRL}})
 
|Claimed by both [[Canada]] and the [[Danish Realm|Kingdom of Denmark]] (on behalf of [[Greenland]]).
 
|}
 
====Territory disputed between Canada and the United States====
 
{{Main|List of areas disputed by Canada and the United States}}
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!{{flagicon|Canada}} Canadian claimant
 
!{{flagicon|USA}} U.S. claimant
 
|-
 
|[[Machias Seal Island]]
 
|New Brunswick
 
|Maine
 
|-
 
|[[North Rock]]
 
|New Brunswick
 
|Maine
 
|-
 
|[[Strait of Juan de Fuca]]
 
|British Columbia
 
|Washington
 
|-
 
|[[Dixon Entrance]]
 
|British Columbia
 
|Alaska
 
|-
 
|[[Beaufort Sea]]
 
|Northwest Territories, Yukon
 
|Alaska
 
|-
 
|[[Northwest Passage]] and some other [[Arctic Ocean|Arctic waters]]
 
|Canadian territorial waters
 
|U.S. claims navigation rights
 
|}
 
===Oceania===
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Claimants
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|[[Matthew and Hunter Islands]]<ref name="CIA" />
 
|{{VUT}}'''{{FRA}}'''
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Minerva Reefs]]
 
|'''{{TON}}'''{{FJI}}
 
|Fiji claims that the entire reef is submerged at high tide, negating use of Minerva as a basis for any sovereignty or maritime [[Exclusive Economic Zone|EEZ]] claim by Tonga under the rules of [[UNCLOS]].
 
|-
 
|[[Swains Island]]<ref name="CIA" />
 
|'''{{flagicon|United States}} [[United States]]'''{{TKL}}
 
|Tokelau's claim is unsupported by New Zealand, of whom Tokelau is a dependency. New Zealand formally recognises the USA's sovereignty over Swains Island.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/28/17/00054814.pdf | title=Treaty on the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Tokelau and the United States of America (with map). Signed at Atafu on 2 December 1980. Authentic texts: English and Tokelauan. Registered by the United States on 25 July 1991 | date=July 25, 1991 | language=en, tkl | access-date=August 28, 2011}} {{Dead link|date=February 2013}}</ref>{{Clarify|reason=This is confusing. Comment seems to suggest territory is not disputed. If so, then why is it even in this list?|date=February 2013}}
 
|-
 
|[[Wake Island]]<ref name="CIA" />
 
|'''{{flagicon|United States}} [[United States]]'''{{MHL}}
 
|
 
|}
 
===South America===
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Claimants
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|[[Guayana Esequiba]] ([[Guyana]] west of the [[Essequibo River]]) and [[Ankoko Island|Ankoko Island/Isla de Anacoco]]
 
|'''{{GUY}}'''{{VEN}}
 
|Venezuela and Guyana have overlapping maritime area claims as well. [[Barbados]] and Guyana have since signed joint cooperation agreement over this area.
 
|-
 
|[[Arroyo de la Invernada]] or [[Rincón de Artigas]] and [[Vila Albornoz]]
 
|'''{{BRA}}'''{{URY}}
 
|Dispute in the {{convert|237|sqkm|abbr=on}} Invernada River region near [[Masoller]], over which tributary represents the legitimate source of the [[Quaraí River|Quaraí River/Cuareim River]] (the UN does not officially recognize the claim)
 
|-
 
|[[Falkland Islands]], [[South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands]]<ref name="CIA" />
 
|'''{{UK}}'''{{ARG}}
 
|Including [[Shag Rocks, South Georgia|Shag Rocks]]. ''See [[Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute]], [[South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute]]''
 
|-
 
|[[French Guiana]] west of the [[Marouini River]]
 
|'''{{FRA}}'''{{SUR}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Tigri Area]] east of the Upper [[Courantyne River]]
 
|'''{{GUY}}'''{{SUR}}
 
|The Tigri Area (Dutch: Tigri-gebied) is a wooded area that has been disputed since around 1840 by Suriname and Guyana. It involves the area between the Upper Corentyne River (also called New River), the [[Coeroeni River]] and the [[Kutari River]]. This triangular area is in Guyana known as the New River Triangle. In 1969 the conflict ran high on and since then the Tigri Area is controlled by Guyana and claimed by Suriname. In 1971 both governments in [[Trinidad and Tobago|Trinidad]] agreed that they continue talks over the border issue and withdraw their military forces from the disputed Triangle. Guyana has never held upon this agreement.
 
|-
 
|[[Brazilian Island|Isla Brasilera/Ilha Brasileira]]
 
|'''{{BRA}}'''{{URY}}
 
|Uruguayan officials claim that the island falls under their [[Artigas Department]] (the UN does not officially recognize the claim)
 
|-
 
|[[Isla Suárez/Ilha de Guajará-mirim]]
 
|'''{{BOL}}'''{{BRA}}
 
|An island in the river that serves as a border between Bolivia and Brazil, alongside others 80 island not assigned to any country, the island is closer to Bolivia but despite this, is economically dependent of the Brazilian city of [[Guajará-Mirim]], both countries signed in 1958 a treaty that keep the island in a [[status quo]]
 
|-
 
|[[Gulf of Venezuela]] and [[Los Monjes Archipelago]] surrounding waters
 
|{{COL}}{{VEN}}
 
|Dispute regarding the undefined sea border between both countries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coha.org/colombia-and-venezuela-the-border-dispute-over-the-gulf/|title=Colombia and Venezuela: The Border Dispute Over the Gulf|publisher=Council on Hemispheric Affairs|access-date=18 April 2018}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Southern Patagonian Ice Field]] between
 
[[Monte Fitz Roy]] and [[Cerro Murallón]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.difrol.cl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=12&lang=english|title=Acuerdo para precisar el recorrido del Límite desde el Monte Fitz Roy hasta el Cerro Daudet|access-date=5 October 2014}}</ref>
 
|{{ARG}}{{CHL}}
 
|Parts of the border still officially undefined.
 
|}
 
==Ongoing disputes involving states outside the UN==
 
{{See also|List of states with limited recognition}}
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
! style="width:150px;" |Territory
 
! style="width:300px;" |Claimants
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|[[Abkhazia]]
 
|'''{{flag|Abkhazia|name=Republic of Abkhazia}}'''{{GEO}}
 
|{{Main|Georgian–Abkhazian conflict}}
 
|-
 
|Village of [[Aibgha (village)|Aibga]] and surrounding area<ref>{{cite news|title=Moscow, Sokhumi Dispute Village in 'Border Talks'|url=http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=23306|newspaper=Civil.ge|date=2 April 2011|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180421094423/http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=23306|archive-date = 21 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Russia e Abkhazia litigano per i confini|url=http://www.agoravox.it/Russia-e-Abkhazia-litigano-per-i.html|newspaper=AgoraVox Italia|date=23 May 2011|first = Luca|last = Troiano|language= it}}</ref>
 
|'''{{flag|Abkhazia|name=Republic of Abkhazia}}'''{{RUS}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Aksai Chin]]
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''{{refn|group=note|name=China1|Since the end of the [[Chinese Civil War]] in 1949, the ''de facto'' territories of the [[Taiwan|Republic of China]] (ROC) are limited to the [[Free area of the Republic of China|Taiwan Area]].<ref name="China1">{{cite book|last1=Sarmento|first1=Clara|title=Eastwards / Westwards: Which Direction for Gender Studies in the 21st Century?|year=2009|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VvcYBwAAQBAJ&q=people%27s+republic+of+china+controls+mainland+china+hong+kong+macau&pg=PA127|page=127|isbn=9781443808682}}</ref><ref name="China2">{{cite book|last1=Henckaerts|first1=Jean-Marie|title=The International Status of Taiwan in the New World Order: Legal And Political Considerations|year=1996|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_9kuVIayxDoC&q=roc+1949+taiwan+effective+control&pg=PA117|page=117|isbn=9789041109293}}</ref> Meanwhile, the [[China|People's Republic of China]] (PRC) controls [[mainland China]], [[Hong Kong]] and [[Macau]].<ref name="China1"/> Officially, both the ROC and the PRC claim ''de jure'' sovereignty over all of China (including Taiwan), and regard the other government as being in rebellion.<ref name="China1"/><ref name="China3">{{cite book|last1=Hudson|first1=Christopher|title=The China Handbook|year=2014|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hm63AwAAQBAJ&q=prc+and+roc+legitimacy&pg=PA59|page=59|isbn=9781134269662}}</ref><ref name="China4">{{cite book|last1=Rigger|first1=Shelley|title=Politics in Taiwan: Voting for Reform|year=2002|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hiiEAgAAQBAJ&q=roc+limited+to+taiwan&pg=PA60|page=60|isbn=9781134692972}}</ref> In Taiwan, the ROC's constitutional claim is supported by the [[Pan-Blue Coalition]] led by the [[Kuomintang]], while the [[Pan-Green Coalition]] led by the [[Democratic Progressive Party]] favors [[Taiwan independence movement|Taiwanese independence]] and does not actively pursue the claim.}}{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{IND}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Bakassi]]
 
|'''{{flag|Cameroon}}'''{{flag|Ambazonia}}{{flag|Nigeria}} (elements)
 
{{flag|Biafra}} (elements)
 
|While Nigeria transferred Bakassi to Cameroon in 2008, elements within Nigeria have declared the territorial cession unconstitutional
 
|-
 
|Eastern part of [[Bhutan]]
 
|'''{{BTN}}'''{{PRC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[History of Bhutan#Western outposts|Bhutanese enclaves]] in [[Tibet]], namely Cherkip Gompa, Dho, Dungmar, Gesur, Gezon, Itse Gompa, Khochar, Nyanri, Ringung, Sanmar, [[Darchen]], [[Doklam]], and Zuthulphuk
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{BTN}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Demchok sector]]
 
|''{{IND}}{{PRC}}''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Depsang Plains]], [[Demchok sector]], [[Chumar]], [[Kaurik]], [[Shipki La]], [[Barahoti]], [[Jadh Ganga|Jadhang]], [[Lapthal]], [[Nelang]], [[Pulam Sumda]] and [[Sang, Uttarakhand|Sang]]
 
|''{{IND}}{{PRC}}''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|Disputed areas located between [[Aksai Chin]] and [[Nepal]].
 
|-
 
|[[James Shoal]]
 
|'''{{MYS}}'''{{PRC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Cyprus dispute|North Cyprus]]
 
|'''{{flag|Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus}}'''{{CYP}}
 
|[[Northern Cyprus]] (a state with limited recognition) controls and administers the northern part of the island.
 
Republic of Cyprus claims the whole island.
 
|-
 
|[[Macclesfield Bank]]
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{PHL}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Mainland China]], [[Hainan]], and other areas controlled by the PRC
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|{{Main|Cross-Strait relations}}
 
|-
 
|Moldovan-controlled area of [[Dubăsari]] district
 
|'''{{MDA}}'''{{flag|Transnistria|name=Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Kokkina exclave|Kokkina/Erenköy exclave]]
 
|'''{{flag|Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus}}'''{{CYP}}
 
|[[Northern Cyprus]] controls and administers Kokkina, an area separated from the rest of the main land on Northern Cyprus via the land controlled by [[Cyprus|the Republic of Cyprus]].
 
|-
 
|[[Heixiazi]] / [[Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island]]
 
(eastern half)
 
|'''{{RUS}}'''{{ROC}}{{refn|group=note|name=China2|Relinquished by the [[China|People's Republic of China]] (PRC) but is still officially claimed by the [[Taiwan|Republic of China]] (ROC). Officially, both the PRC and the ROC claim ''de jure'' sovereignty over all of China (including Taiwan), and regard the other government as being in rebellion.<ref name="China1">{{cite book|last1=Sarmento|first1=Clara|title=Eastwards / Westwards: Which Direction for Gender Studies in the 21st Century?|year=2009|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VvcYBwAAQBAJ&q=people%27s+republic+of+china+controls+mainland+china+hong+kong+macau&pg=PA127|page=127|isbn=9781443808682}}</ref><ref name="China3">{{cite book|last1=Hudson|first1=Christopher|title=The China Handbook|year=2014|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hm63AwAAQBAJ&q=prc+and+roc+legitimacy&pg=PA59|page=59|isbn=9781134269662}}</ref><ref name="China4">{{cite book|last1=Rigger|first1=Shelley|title=Politics in Taiwan: Voting for Reform|year=2002|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hiiEAgAAQBAJ&q=roc+limited+to+taiwan&pg=PA60|page=60|isbn=9781134692972}}</ref> Therefore, the ROC does not recognize any territorial dispute settlement entered into by the PRC.}}
 
|Generally held to have been resolved in October 2004 by the [[Complementary Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation on the Eastern Section of the China-Russia Boundary]]. However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China.<ref name="China2" group="note" />
 
|-
 
|[[Heixiazi]] / [[Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island]]
 
(western half)
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|{{Main|Cross-Strait relations}}
 
|-
 
|[[Hong Kong]]
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|Former ROC president [[Lee Teng-hui]] claimed that Hong Kong should have been returned to the ROC instead of the PRC because the ROC government had the original manuscript of the [[Treaty of Nanking]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.greenparty.org.tw/index.php/actions/databae/1997/766-1997-06-26|title=南京條約的正本在台灣 香港的主權屬於中華民國|publisher=台灣綠黨|date=1997-06-26|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140509061238/http://www.greenparty.org.tw/index.php/actions/databae/1997/766-1997-06-26|archive-date=2014-05-09}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|Northern part of [[Kachin State]]
 
|'''{{MYA}}'''{{ROC}}<ref name="China2" group="note" />
 
|North part west of the [[Gaoligong Mountains]] ([[:zh:高黎貢山|高黎貢山]]) in western [[Yunnan]], China, and the Division of [[Sagaing]]: [[Jiangxinpo]] ([[:zh:江心坡|江心坡]]) and [[Namhkam, Shan State|Nankan]] (南坎).
 
|-
 
|106.40 square kilometres of formerly Chinese territory in Kazakhstan
 
|'''{{KAZ}}'''{{ROC}}<ref name="China2" group="note" />
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Kosovo]]
 
|'''{{flag|Republic of Kosovo}}'''{{SRB}}
 
|[[Kosovo]] is the subject of a territorial dispute between the [[Serbia|Republic of Serbia]] and the self-proclaimed [[Republic of Kosovo]]. The latter [[2008 Kosovo declaration of independence|declared independence on 17 February 2008]], while [[Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence|Serbia claims it]] as part of its [[Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija|own sovereign territory]]. Its independence is recognized by 96 UN member states.
 
|-
 
|[[Kula Kangri]] and mountainous areas to the west of this peak, plus the western [[Haa District]] of [[Bhutan]]
 
|''{{BTN}}{{PRC}}''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Kutuzov Island]]
 
|'''{{RUS}}'''{{ROC}}<ref name="China2" group="note" />
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Macau]]
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|Both the PRC and the ROC officially consider themselves to be the sole legitimate government over the entirety of China.
 
|-
 
|Part of the EEZ generated by the [[Natuna Islands]]
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{IDN}}
 
|The People's Republic of China claims the water off the Natuna Islands that fall under the [[nine-dash line]] claim are traditional Chinese fishing grounds. The Republic of China on Taiwan also claims the area.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CNVf9R_L5FAC&q=taiwan+claim+on+natuna+waters&pg=PA36|title=War Or Peace in the South China Sea?|first=Timo|last=Kivimäki|date=30 June 2017|publisher=NIAS Press|access-date=30 June 2017|via=Google Books|isbn=9788791114014}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Ladakh]]
 
|''{{IND}}''
 
''{{PAK}}''
 
|Controlled by India, but Pakistan claims sovereignty as part of the Muslim populated state of Kashmir.
 
|-
 
|[[Mongolia|Outer Mongolia]]
 
|'''{{MNG}}'''{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|{{Main|Taiwan-Mongolia relations}}The Republic of China briefly recognized Mongolia's independence between 1945 and 1952, and from 2002 onwards; however, under the [[Constitution of the Republic of China]], the ROC claim on Mongolia cannot be withdrawn without recourse to a referendum.
 
|-
 
|[[Pamir Mountains]]
 
|''{{TJK}}{{PRC}}''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" /><ref name="China2" group="note" />
 
|The Tajik Government ceded {{convert|1158|km2|sqmi}} to the PRC, while PRC relinquished its {{convert|28000|sqmi|km2}} claim over the remaining territory with final ratification of a treaty in January 2011.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Tajikistan cedes land to China|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-12180567|date=13 January 2011|newspaper=BBC News}}</ref><ref name="China2" group="note" /> However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China.<ref name="China2" group="note" />
 
|-
 
|[[Paracel Islands]]<ref name="CIA" />
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{VNM}}
 
|Entirely controlled by the People's Republic of China but claimed by the Republic of China and Vietnam.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35593162|title=What does disputed Paracel island look like?|work=BBC News|date=2016-02-17|access-date=2020-09-17}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|Part of the [[Ryanggang Province]]
 
|'''{{PRK}}'''{{KOR}}{{ROC}}<ref name="China2" group="note" />
 
|
 
|-
 
|Part of the [[Rasŏn|Rasŏn administrative division]]
 
|'''{{PRK}}'''{{KOR}}{{ROC}}<ref name="China2" group="note" />
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Scarborough Shoal]]
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{PHL}}
 
|Controlled by the PRC since the [[2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff]].
 
|-
 
|[[Senkaku Islands]] (Diaoyu Tai or Diaoyu Dao)<ref name="CIA" />
 
|'''{{JPN}}'''{{PRC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|Controlled by Japan but claimed by the PRC and ROC.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2020/06/23/2003738693|title=Nation protests Japan's Diaoyutai move|work=Taipei Times|date=2020-06-23|access-date=2020-09-15}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Shaksgam Valley]]
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{IND}}
 
|Pakistan was originally a party to the dispute but relinquished its claim and accepted Chinese sovereignty over the area in 1963.
 
|-
 
|[[Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River]]
 
|'''{{flag|Russia}}'''{{ROC}}<ref name="China2" group="note" />
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Republic of Somaliland]]
 
|'''{{flag|Somaliland}}'''{{SOM}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[South Ossetia]]
 
|'''{{flag|South Ossetia|name=Republic of South Ossetia}}'''{{GEO}}
 
|{{Main|Georgian–Ossetian conflict}}
 
|-
 
|[[South Tibet]]
 
|'''{{IND}}'''{{PRC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|Controlled by India but claimed by the PRC and ROC who dispute the validity of the [[McMahon Line]].
 
|-
 
|[[Southern Cameroons]]
 
|''{{flag|Cameroon}}{{flag|Ambazonia}}''
 
|{{Main|Anglophone Crisis}}
 
|-
 
|[[Spratly Islands]]
 
|''{{PRC}}''<ref name="China1" group="note" />''{{ROC}}''<ref name="China1" group="note" />''{{VNM}}{{PHL}}'' (part)
 
''{{MYS}}'' (part)
 
{{BRN}} (part)
 
|Each of the claimant countries except Brunei controls one or more of the individual islands.
 
|-
 
|'Border' checkpoint near [[Strovilia]]
 
|''{{flag|United Kingdom}}{{flag|Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus}}''
 
|[[Northern Cyprus]] controls and administers the border checkpoint near [[Strovilia]].
 
UK's claim in regard to its [[Sovereign Base Areas]]
 
Technically, of course, this also involves {{CYP}}; the checkpoint is partially on [[UN]]-administered land, and [[Cyprus]] claims all of the island. (See: [[#In Europe|Europe]])
 
|-
 
|[[Geography of Taiwan|Taiwan]],
 
[[Penghu]],
 
[[Kinmen]],
 
[[Matsu Islands]],
 
[[Pratas Island]] and the Vereker Banks
 
|'''{{ROC}}'''<ref>''[[s:Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China|Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China]]'', Article 9, Section 2</ref><ref name="China1" group="note" />{{PRC}}<ref>''[[s:Constitution of the People's Republic of China|Constitution of the People's Republic of China]]'', Preamble</ref><ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|The government of the People's Republic of China claims the entire island of Taiwan, as well as a number of minor islands, such as [[Penghu]], [[Kinmen]], and [[Matsu Islands|Matsu]], that are controlled by the Republic of China. See also: [[Anti-Secession Law]], [[Legal status of Taiwan]].
 
|-
 
|[[Trans-Karakoram Tract]]s
 
|'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{IND}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Transnistria]] (including [[Bendery]])
 
|'''{{flag|Transnistria|name=Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic}}'''{{MDA}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Tuva|Tannu Tuva]]
 
|'''{{RUS}}'''{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />
 
|Originally part of China during the [[Qing dynasty]] but came under Russian influence in the 20th century. Sovereignty over the area has not been officially relinquished by the ROC. However, the claim is not actively pursued by the ROC government.
 
|-
 
|[[Varniţa, Anenii Noi|Varnita]] and [[Copanca]]
 
|'''{{MDA}}'''{{flag|Transnistria|name=Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Western Sahara]]
 
|''{{MAR}}{{flag|Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic}}''
 
|The [[United Nations]] keeps the Western Sahara in its [[United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories|list of Non-Self-Governing Territories]] and considers the sovereignty issue as unresolved pending a final solution. To that end, the UN sent a [[United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara|mission in the territory]] to oversee a referendum on self-determination in 1991, but it never happened. Administration was relinquished by Spain in 1976.
 
|-
 
|[[Yalu River]] (disputed sovereignty of certain islands)<ref name="CIA" /><ref name="Korea" group="note">The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea) do not recognize each other.</ref>
 
|''{{PRC}}''<ref name="China1" group="note" />''{{PRK}}''{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" /><ref name="China2" group="note" />{{KOR}}
 
|Generally held to have been resolved in 2005. North Korea is allocated all of the large islands in the lower [[Yalu River]], including [[Pidansom|Pidan]] and [[Sindo (island)|Sindo]] at the mouth.<ref>Even official Chinese maps award these islands to North Korea, such as the provincial map on p. 41 in the 2005 Chinese atlas "Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Jiaotong Dituji" {{ISBN|7-80104-652-8}}, (www.starmap.com.cn)</ref> The river's maritime rights remain shared between North Korea and the PRC. However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China.<ref name="China2" group="note" />
 
|}
 
==Ongoing disputes within a state by internal entities==
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Country
 
!Internal claimants
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|Several islands in the [[Paraná River]]
 
|{{flag|Argentina}}
 
|'''{{flag|Entre Ríos}}'''{{flag|Santa Fe}}
 
|Islands: ''Isla de los Mástiles/La Carlota'', ''Isla Ingeniero Sabino Corsi Norte/Sur'' and ''Isla General Juan Pistarini''.
 
|-
 
|{{ill|Put Point|es|Punto Put}}
 
|{{flag|Mexico}}
 
|[[File:Coat of arms of Campeche.svg|20px|link=Special:FilePath/Coat_of_arms_of_Campeche.svg]] [[Campeche]]
 
[[File:Coat of arms of Quintana Roo.svg|20px|link=Special:FilePath/Coat_of_arms_of_Quintana_Roo.svg]] [[Quintana Roo]]
 
[[File:Coat of arms of Yucatan.svg|20px|link=Special:FilePath/Coat_of_arms_of_Yucatan.svg]] [[Yucatán]]
 
|The three states claim three different borders between them.
 
|-
 
|[[Mount Kerinci]]
 
|{{flag|Indonesia}}
 
|[[File:Coat of arms of Jambi.svg|20px|link=Special:FilePath/Coat_of_arms_of_Jambi.svg]] [[Jambi]]
 
[[File:Coat of arms of West Sumatra.svg|20px|link=Special:FilePath/Coat_of_arms_of_West_Sumatra.svg]] [[West Sumatra]]
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Belgaum border dispute|Belgaum]]
 
|{{flag|India}}
 
|'''{{noflag|[[Karnataka]]}}'''{{noflag|[[Maharashtra]]}}
 
|
 
|-
 
|As much as a 2,821&nbsp;km<sup>2</sup>-wide area in and around the [[Serra de Ibiapaba|Ibiapaba mountain range]]
 
|{{flag|Brazil}}
 
|'''{{flag|Ceará}}'''{{flag|Piauí}}
 
|This dispute originated in an 1880 imperial decree. In 1920 a solution to the dispute was [[Arbitration|arbitrated]] but in practice it was never carried out. In 2008 there were new attempted negotiations, but they broke down in 2011, and as of 2013 it is pending either a [[Supremo Tribunal Federal|supreme court]] decision, a [[referendum]] or a possible mutual agreement.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://g1.globo.com/ceara/noticia/2011/10/acao-no-stf-acirra-disputa-entre-ceara-e-piaui-por-area-de-divisa.html|title=G1 – Ação no STF acirra disputa entre Ceará e Piauí por área de divisa – notícias em Ceará|website=Ceará|access-date=5 October 2014}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[File:Bandeira-fernandodenoronha.png|25px|link=Special:FilePath/Bandeira-fernandodenoronha.png]] [[Fernando de Noronha]]
 
|{{flag|Brazil}}
 
|'''{{flag|Pernambuco}}'''{{flag|Rio Grande do Norte}}
 
|The dispute dates from the colonial period.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.folhape.com.br/noticias/noticias/brasil/2017/03/18/NWS,21510,70,450,NOTICIAS,2190-FERNANDO-NORONHA-MEIO-UMA-QUEDA-BRACO.aspx |title=Fernando de Noronha em meio a uma queda de braço |website=Folha de Pernambuco}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Disputed territories of Northern Iraq]]
 
|{{flag|Iraq}}
 
|'''{{flag|Iraq}}''' proper
 
'''{{flag|Iraqi Kurdistan}}'''
 
|Iraq's autonomous region of [[Iraqi Kurdistan]] claims and controls parts of the governorates of [[Nineveh Governorate|Nineveh]], [[Arbil Governorate|Arbil]], [[Kirkuk Governorate|Kirkuk]] and [[Diyala Governorate|Diyala]].
 
|-
 
|[[Lubicon]] traditional territory between the [[Peace River (Canada)|Peace River]] and [[Athabasca River]] and north of [[Lesser Slave Lake]]
 
|{{flag|Canada}}
 
|'''{{flag|Alberta}}'''{{noflag|[[Lubicon Lake Indian Nation]]}} ([[Cree]])
 
|Northern Alberta
 
|-
 
|[[Labrador boundary dispute|Southern edge of Labrador]]
 
|{{flag|Canada}}
 
|'''{{flag|Newfoundland and Labrador}}'''{{flag|Quebec}}
 
|This was formerly an international dispute between [[Canada]], which includes [[Quebec]], and the [[Dominion of Newfoundland]], then an independent country. [[Quebec]] has never accepted the border.
 
|-
 
|[[Songling District]] and [[Jiagedaqi District]]
 
|{{PRC}}
 
|{{noflag|[[Inner Mongolia]]}}'''{{noflag|[[Heilongjiang]]}}'''
 
|The two districts are owned by Inner Mongolia, but Jiagedaqi District(urban) was established as capital of [[Daxinganling]] Prefecture, Heilongjiang Province, resulting it and adjacent Songling District under effective control of Heilongjiang Province. [[Hulunbuir]] City(Prefecture), Inner Mongolia actively disputes these two districts, as they formerly belongs to [[Oroqen Autonomous Banner]], Hulunbuir.
 
|-
 
|[[Belén de Bajirá]]
 
|{{flag|Colombia}}
 
|'''[[File:Flag of Antioquia Department.svg|border|20px|link=Special:FilePath/Flag_of_Antioquia_Department.svg]]&nbsp;[[Antioquia Department|Antioquia]]'''[[File:Flag of Chocó.svg|border|20px|link=Special:FilePath/Flag_of_Chocó.svg]]&nbsp;[[Chocó Department|Chocó]]
 
|Disputed since 2000, both Departments of Antioquia and Chocó have claimed the [[corregimiento]] as part of their own respective municipalities. In 2014, amidst a rise of tensions between the claimants, the National Government under the [[Geographic Institute Agustín Codazzi]] formally started a process to find a solution for the dispute.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.caracol.com.co/noticias/regionales/antioquia-pide-respetar-reglas-en-proceso-de-deslinde-de-belen-de-bajira/20140818/nota/2373002.aspx|title=Antioquia pide respetar reglas en proceso de deslinde de Belén de Bajirá|access-date=5 October 2014}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|A wide section from the [[35th parallel north]] to 2&nbsp;km south.
 
|{{USA}}
 
|'''{{flag|Tennessee}}'''{{flag|Georgia (U.S. state)|name=Georgia}}
 
|Due to an inaccurate measurement in 1818, Georgia claims the correct 35th latitude north, and does so in a chance of a drought, it would have access to the [[Tennessee River]].<ref>Shaila Dewan, [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/22water.html?em&ex=1203829200&en=9fe2c2ffaf5be75a&ei=5087%0A Georgia Claims a Sliver of the Tennessee River], ''The New York Times'', February 22, 2008</ref> See ''[[Tennessee-Georgia water dispute]]''.
 
|- <span id="California Oregon Dispute"></span>
 
|California-Oregon border,
 
51,000 acres straddling the [[42nd parallel north]]
 
|{{USA}}
 
|{{flag|California}}{{flag|Oregon}}
 
|Location errors in an 1868–1870 survey to demarcate the Oregon-California border created a dispute between Oregon and California, which upon statehood had established the [[42nd parallel north]] as its ''de jure'' border, based on the 1819 [[Adams–Onís Treaty]] between the U.S. and Spain. The dispute continues to this day, as Oregon has about 31,000 acres of California, while California has about 20,000 acres of Oregon.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.latimes.com/1985-05-19/news/mn-9232_1_border-dispute| title=California-Oregon Dispute : Border Fight Has Townfolk on Edge|date=May 19, 1985|first=Jeff|last=Barnard|work= Los Angeles Times|publisher= Associated Press |quote=Preliminary studies indicate that, as the result of an 1870 surveying error, Oregon has about 31,000 acres of California, while California has about 20,000 acres of Oregon.}}</ref> The border should follow the 42nd parallel straight west from the [[120th meridian west]] to the Pacific. Instead it zigzags, and only one of the many surveyor's markers put down in 1868 actually is on the 42nd parallel.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/24/us/sea-riches-spur-feud-on-border.html|title=SEA RICHES SPUR FEUD ON BORDER| first=Wallace|last=Turner|work= New York Times|date= March 24, 1985}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2013/jun/14/will-north-coast-marine-protected-areas-lead-war-o/ |first=Hank|last=Sims| date=June 14, 2013|website=Lost Coast Outpost|title=Will the North Coast Marine Protected Areas Spark a War With Oregon?}}</ref><ref>{{cite map|url=https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/marine/mpas/network/northern-california#27023457-pyramid-point-state-marine-conservation-area|quote=Available from: http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117182|title=Map: Pyramid Point State Marine Conservation Area (PDF)| author=California Department of Fish and Wildlife|publisher=California Department of Fish and Wildlife|date=1 Mar 2016}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|'''[[New Mexico]]'''-[[Texas]] Panhandle border
 
|{{flag|United States}}
 
|'''{{flag|Texas}}'''{{flag|New Mexico}}
 
|The border was defined as the [[103rd meridian west|103rd meridian]] but an 1859 survey marked it too far west, mistakenly putting present-day towns of [[Farwell, Texas|Farwell]], [[Texline, Texas|Texline]], and a [[Glenrio, Texas|part of Glenrio]] in [[Texas]]. New Mexico's draft constitution used the 103rd meridian as intended. The [[New Mexico Senate]] passed a bill to file a lawsuit to recover the strip, but it has not become law.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/1357432.html|title=Border War Brewing?|author=Daniel Gertson|access-date=2018-04-17}}</ref> The land and towns are administered by Texas.
 
|-
 
|Parts of [[Fort Bonifacio]]
 
|{{flag|Philippines}}
 
|'''{{noflag|[[Makati]]}}'''{{noflag|[[Taguig]]}}{{noflag|[[Pateros]]}}
 
|Disputed since 1983. Taguig claims more than 729 hectares of land in Fort Bonifacio, an area administered by Makati. On August 5, 2013, the [[Court of Appeals of the Philippines|Court of Appeals]] Sixth Division ruled that Makati has legal jurisdiction over the area, thus invalidating Taguig's claim.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/459431/ca-rules-makati-city-not-taguig-has-jurisdiction-over-fort-bonifacio|title=CA rules Makati City, not Taguig, has jurisdiction over Fort Bonifacio|access-date=5 October 2014}}</ref> Taguig has not abandoned its claims and will petition the Court of Appeals to have the decision revoked.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/320790/news/nation/taguig-to-appeal-ca-decision-on-fort-boni-dispute|title=Taguig to appeal CA decision on Fort Boni dispute|website=GMA News Online|access-date=5 October 2014}}</ref> Pateros also claims the area and has filed a petition before the Taguig Regional Court Branch 271 in 2012 concerning its claim. Pateros reiterated its claims in 2013 following the decision of the Court of Appeals awarding Makati jurisdiction over the area.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/08/07/13/pateros-fort-bonifacio-ours|title=Pateros: Fort Bonifacio is ours|website=ABS-CBN News|access-date=22 October 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/460115/pateros-joins-the-fray-fort-bonifacio-is-ours|title=Pateros joins the fray: 'Fort Bonifacio is ours'|access-date=5 October 2014}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Fiat Auto Poland]] factory and nearest areas
 
|{{flag|Poland}}
 
|'''{{noflag|[[Tychy]]}}'''{{noflag|[[Bieruń]]}}
 
|The territory has historically been a part of the town of Bieruń. In years 1975–1991 Bieruń was a part of Tychy. The Fiat Auto Poland (formerly [[Fabryka Samochodów Małolitrażowych|FSM]] factory) remaining in Tychy was a condition of Bieruń's separation. In the 90s, Bieruń has regained the Homera [[osiedle]] which was part of the disputed area.<ref>{{cite web|title=Tychy kontra Bieruń. Jak Kargul i Pawlak, ale z Fiatem w tle|url=http://www.mmsilesia.pl/248273/tychy-kontra-bierun-jak-kargul-i-pawlak-ale-z-fiatem-w-tle|first=Krzysztof|last=Tomczyk|website=Moje Miasto Silesia|publisher=Media Regionalne|language=pl|date=4 March 2010|access-date=18 September 2014}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Prigorodny District, North Ossetia–Alania]]
 
|{{flag|Russia}}
 
|'''[[North Ossetia–Alania]]'''[[Ingushetia]]
 
|{{main|East Prigorodny Conflict}}
 
|-
 
|Phuldungsei
 
|{{flag|India}}
 
|{{noflag|[[Mizoram]]}}{{noflag|[[Tripura]]}}
 
|
 
|}
 
==Antarctica==
 
{{Further|Territorial claims in Antarctica}}
 
The [[Antarctic Treaty System]], formed on 1 December 1959 and entered into force on 23 June 1961, establishes the legal framework for the management of [[Antarctica]] and provides administration for the continent, which is carried out through consultative member meetings. It prevents new territorial claims of all signatories (except the U.S. and Russia) for as long as the treaty is in force. However, it is not a final settlement; parties can choose to withdraw from the System at any time. Furthermore, only a minority of states have signed it, and it is not formally sanctioned by the [[United Nations]]. Thus, Antarctica remains the only part of the planet any (non-signatory) state can still lay claim to as ''[[terra nullius]]'' (on the grounds of it not having been part of any existing state's legal and effective territory).
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Claimants
 
!Antarctic territory
 
|-
 
|Area between [[25th meridian west|25°W]] and [[53rd meridian west|53°W]]
 
|{{flagdeco|United Kingdom}} [[The Crown|United Kingdom]]
 
{{flag|Argentina}}
 
|{{flag|British Antarctic Territory}}{{flag|Argentine Antarctica}}
 
|-
 
|Area between [[53rd meridian west|53°W]] and [[74th meridian west|74°W]]
 
|{{flagdeco|United Kingdom}} [[The Crown|United Kingdom]]
 
{{flag|Argentina}}{{flag|Chile}}
 
|{{flag|British Antarctic Territory}}{{flag|Argentine Antarctica}}{{flag|Antártica Chilena Province}}
 
|-
 
|Area between [[74th meridian west|74°W]] and [[80th meridian west|80°W]]
 
|{{flagdeco|United Kingdom}} [[The Crown|United Kingdom]]
 
{{flag|Chile}}
 
|{{flag|British Antarctic Territory}}{{flag|Antártica Chilena Province}}
 
|}
 
==Micronations==
 
See [[List of micronations]] and [[Micronation]]
 
==Historical disputes, subsequently settled==
 
===Africa===
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Former claimants
 
!Dispute started
 
!Dispute settled
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|[[Agacher Strip War|Agacher Strip]]
 
|''{{BFA}}{{MLI}}''
 
|c. 1960
 
|1986
 
|Following repeated military clashes between Burkina Faso and Mali over the Agacher Strip, the [[International Court of Justice]] resolved the conflict in 1986 by dividing the disputed area approximately equally between the two countries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3802162.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150328142006/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3802162.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=2015-03-28|title=International Court settles West African land dispute|website=Chicago Sun-Times|date=1986|access-date=9 October 2014}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Aouzou Strip]]
 
|'''{{CHA}}'''{{Flagicon|Libyan Arab Jamahiriya}} [[Libya]]
 
|c. 1973
 
|1994
 
|In 1994 the International Court of Justice [[Libya-Chad Territorial Dispute case|decision]] found in favour of Chad sovereignty over the Aouzou strip, and ended the Libyan claim.
 
|-
 
|[[Badme]]
 
|{{ETH}}'''{{ERI}}'''
 
|1993
 
|2018
 
|Basis of the [[Eritrean-Ethiopian War]] which began in 1998. The territory was handed over to Eritrea following a joint statement at the [[2018 Eritrea–Ethiopia summit|Eritrea–Ethiopia summit in 2018]].
 
|-
 
|[[Bakassi]]
 
|'''{{CMR}}'''{{NGA}}
 
|1913
 
|2006
 
|This area was handed over by [[Nigeria]] to [[Cameroon]] following an [[International Court of Justice]] ruling and the [[Greentree Agreement]].
 
|-
 
|[[Bure (disputed zone)|Bure]]
 
|'''{{ETH}}'''{{ERI}}<ref name="African Affairs - Sign In Page">{{cite journal|first=J|last=ABBINK|title=Briefing: The Eritrean-Ethiopian Border Dispute|date=1 October 1998|journal=African Affairs|volume=97|issue=389|pages=551–565|doi=10.1093/oxfordjournals.afraf.a007970|hdl=1887/9481|hdl-access=free}}</ref>
 
|2002
 
|2008
 
|Eritrea has accepted the decision and no longer disputes this location.<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite web|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-01-16/eritrea-accepts-virtual-border-with-ethiopia/1014548|access-date=2016-05-05|title=Eritrea accepts 'virtual' border with Ethiopia}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Burkina Faso–Niger Frontier Dispute case|Burkina Faso–Niger border dispute]]
 
|''{{BFA}}{{NER}}''
 
|c. 1960
 
|2013
 
|The International Court of Justice redefined the border between Burkina Faso and Niger in 2013. In 2015 the ruling was implemented by exchanging 18 towns between the two countries.<ref>{{cite news|title=International Court rules that main disputed island belongs to Niger not Benin |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/08/burkina-faso-niger-exchange-18-towns-settle-border-dispute |newspaper=The Guardian |date=8 May 2015 |access-date=27 July 2016}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|Part of the [[Kahemba]] region
 
|'''{{AGO}}{{flag|Democratic Republic of Congo}}'''
 
|
 
|2007
 
|Following a March 2007 report on the disputed area on the joint border in the Kahemba region, the Congolese interior minister admitted the territory was in fact part of Angola and agreed to send a technical team to demarcate the border along colonial era lines.<ref>{{cite news|title=Congo Acknowledges Disputed Border Area Is In Angola Origin|url=http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=07KINSHASA318|access-date=19 July 2012|newspaper=Embassy Kinshasa cable|date=March 16, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120627213122/http://cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=07KINSHASA318|archive-date=27 June 2012|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref> The countries agreed to end the dispute in July 2007.<ref>{{cite news|title=Angola, DR Congo end border row|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6924953.stm|access-date=19 July 2012|newspaper=BBC|date=31 Jul 2007}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Lété Island]] and nearby islands in the Niger River
 
|''{{NER}}{{BEN}}''
 
|c. 1960
 
|2005
 
|In 2005 the International Court of Justice awarded Lété and 15 of the other disputed islands to Niger, and the remaining nine islands to Benin.<ref>{{cite news|title=International Court rules that main disputed island belongs to Niger not Benin |url=http://www.irinnews.org/report/55426/benin-niger-international-court-rules-main-disputed-island-belongs-niger-not-benin |newspaper=IRIN |location=Dakar |date=12 July 2005 |access-date=27 July 2016}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Sedudu]]
 
|'''{{BOT}}'''{{NAM}}
 
|1890
 
|1999
 
|In 1999 the International Court of Justice awarded Sedudu to Botswana, ending the Namibian claim.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=b7&case=98&code=bona&p3=1(BOTSWANA/NAMIBIA)|title=Cases: Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia)|access-date=30 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605002744/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=b7&case=98&code=bona&p3=1%28BOTSWANA%2FNAMIBIA%29|archive-date=2011-06-05|url-status=dead}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Tsorona-Zalambessa]]
 
|'''{{ETH}}{{ERI}}'''<ref name="African Affairs - Sign In Page" />
 
|2002
 
|2008
 
|Eritrea has accepted the decision and no longer disputes this location.<ref name="autogenerated1" />
 
|-
 
|[[Yenga]] (border hamlet), and left bank of the [[Makona]] and [[Moa River|Moa]] rivers
 
|'''{{SLE}}'''{{GIN}}
 
|c. 1995
 
|2013
 
|The two heads of state settled this dispute in 2013.<ref>{{cite news|title=Sierra Leone government takes media to disputed border with Guinea|url=http://newskenya.co.ke/news/latest/africareview/sierra-leone-government-takes-media-to-disputed-border-with-guinea/1dlnb.119643|work=News Kenya|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140305042448/http://newskenya.co.ke/news/latest/africareview/sierra-leone-government-takes-media-to-disputed-border-with-guinea/1dlnb.119643|archive-date=2014-03-05}}</ref>
 
|}
 
===Americas===
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Former claimants
 
!Dispute started
 
!Dispute settled
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|[[Alaska boundary dispute]]
 
|''{{flag|United States|1896}}{{flag|Canada|1868}}''
 
|1821
 
|1903
 
|Disputed between the United States and Canada (then a [[Dominion|British Dominion]] with its foreign affairs controlled from London). The dispute had been going on between the Russian and British Empires since 1821, and was inherited by the United States as a consequence of the [[Alaska Purchase]] in 1867. It was resolved by arbitration in 1903 with a delegation that included 3 Americans, 2 Canadians, and 1 British delegate that became the swing vote. By a 4 to 2 vote, the final resolution favored the American position. Canada did not get an outlet from the [[Yukon]] gold fields to the sea. The disappointment and anger in Canada was directed less at the United States, and more at the British government for betraying Canadian interests in pursuit of a friendly relationship between Britain and the United States.
 
|-
 
|[[Aroostook War]]
 
|''{{flag|United States|1896}}{{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[British North America]]''
 
|1838
 
|1842
 
|Disputed border between the state of Maine and the provinces of New Brunswick and [[Lower Canada]].
 
|-
 
|[[Atacama border dispute]]
 
|'''{{BOL}}'''{{CHI}}
 
|1879
 
|1904
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Guaíra Falls]]
 
|{{BRA}}
 
{{PAR}}
 
|1872
 
|1982
 
|The disputed islands were submerged by the [[Itaipu Dam|reservoir of Itaipú]].
 
|-
 
|[[Chamizal dispute]]
 
|''{{flag|United States|1896}}{{flag|Mexico|1893}}''
 
|1898
 
|1963
 
|Disputed border within the [[El Paso]]/[[Ciudad Juárez]] region.
 
|-
 
|[[Cresap's War]]
 
|''{{flag|Maryland}}{{flag|Pennsylvania}}''
 
|1730
 
|1767
 
|Dispute over the northern border of the [[Province of Maryland]] and southern border of [[Province of Pennsylvania]], particularly west of the [[Susquehanna River]]. Settled by the drawing of the [[Mason–Dixon line]].
 
|-
 
|[[New Hampshire Grants]]/[[Vermont Republic|Vermont]]
 
|[[Province of New Hampshire|New Hampshire]]
 
[[Province of New York|New York]]
 
 
[[Vermont Republic|Vermont]]
 
|1749
 
|1791
 
|In 1664 [[Charles II of England|King Charles II]] decided the west bank of the [[Connecticut River]] was the eastern boundary of New York, so that that province included all of what later became the state of [[Vermont]]. During 1749–64, Governor [[Benning Wentworth]] of New Hampshire issued well over a hundred "grants", offering lands for sale west of the river in what would become Vermont. In 1764, [[George III of the United Kingdom|King George III]] attempted to end the dispute by ruling that the region belonged to New York. But New York would not recognize the property claims of numerous settlers whose claims were based on Wentworth's grants, so local governments and militias resisted New York's rule. In 1777, the politicians of the disputed territory declared it independent of New York, Britain, and New Hampshire, calling it the State of Vermont. Vermont existed for 14 years as an unrecognized de facto independent country, considered by New York to be a district in rebellion. Negotiations between New York and Vermont in 1790 removed impediments to Vermont's [[admission to the Union]] in 1791.
 
|-
 
|[[Wedge (border)|Delaware Wedge]]
 
|'''{{flag|Delaware}}'''{{flag|Maryland}}{{flag|Pennsylvania}}
 
|1750s
 
|1921
 
|A [[Gore (surveying)|gore]] created when the borders of the colonies Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania were defined.  Dispute over the borders between the three colonies dates to the foundation of each during the middle 17th century.  A series of defined lines and arcs were laid out by statute to settle the disputes, the most famous of which was the [[Mason–Dixon line]].  The Wedge was left out of all three colonies (and later [[U.S. state]]s), and remained a matter of dispute until it was formally resolved to assign the Wedge to Delaware in 1921.
 
|-
 
|Eastern shore of the [[Narragansett Bay]]
 
|'''[[Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations]]'''[[Plymouth Colony]] (to 1691)
 
[[Province of Massachusetts Bay]] (from 1691)
 
|1636
 
|1898
 
|Claimed by both Rhode Island and Plymouth Colony.  Plymouth's claim was inherited by the newly created Province of Massachusetts Bay when the latter was created in 1691 from the merger of earlier Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth Colonies.  A royal decree in 1746 assigned the land to Rhode Island, but Massachusetts continued to press its claim until 1898.
 
|-
 
|[[New York – New Jersey Line War]]
 
|''{{flag|New York}}{{flag|New Jersey}}''
 
|1701
 
|1756
 
|Dispute over the southern border of [[Province of New York]] and the northern border of the [[Province of New Jersey]]. Raiding parties kidnapped and burned crops.
 
|-
 
|[[Isla Martín García]]
 
|'''{{ARG}}'''
 
{{URY}}
 
|1879
 
|1973
 
|After the [[Conquest of the Desert]] was formally launched in 1879, many indigenous leaders captured were confined there. The island was transferred to [[Argentine Navy]] jurisdiction in 1886. The island's distance from the Uruguayan territory is less than 3&nbsp;km, and its jurisdictional status was formally established by the [[1973 Boundary Treaty between Uruguay and Argentina|Treaty of Río de la Plata]] between Uruguay and Argentina on November 19, 1973.
 
|-
 
|[[History of the Ecuadorian–Peruvian territorial dispute|Cordillera del Cóndor-Cenepa River]]
 
|'''{{PER}}'''{{ECU}}
 
|1828
 
|1998
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Cordillera of the Andes Boundary Case 1902 (Argentina, Chile)|Cordillera of the Andes Boundary Case]]
 
|''{{ARG}}''
 
''{{CHL}}''
 
|1881
 
|1902
 
|After the signature of the [[Boundary treaty of 1881 between Chile and Argentina]] differing interpretations on whether the highest Andean peaks (favouring Argentina) or the [[continental divide]] (favouring Chile) was to be considered the boundary.
 
|-
 
|[[Puna de Atacama dispute]]
 
|''{{ARG}}''
 
''{{CHL}}''
 
|1889
 
|1898
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Clipperton Island]]
 
|{{flag|Mexico}}{{flag|France}}
 
|1897
 
|1931
 
|Disputed between France and Mexico. On January 28, 1931, King [[Victor Emmanuel III of Italy|Victor Emanuel]], selected as a neutral arbitrator, finally declared Clipperton to be a French possession, and it has remained relatively undisputed ever since.
 
|-
 
|[[Beagle conflict]]
 
|''{{ARG}}''
 
''{{CHL}}''
 
|1898
 
|1982
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Río Encuentro-Alto Palena dispute]]
 
|''{{ARG}}''
 
''{{CHL}}''
 
|1913
 
|1966
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Laguna del Desierto]]
 
|'''{{ARG}}'''
 
{{CHL}}
 
|1949
 
|1994
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Missouri]]
 
|'''{{USA}}'''{{Confederacy}} ''''''
 
|1861
 
|1865
 
|After the [[Missouri secession]], the State of Missouri was claimed by both the United States and [[Confederate States]] until the defeat of the Confederacy in the [[American Civil War]]
 
|-
 
|[[Republic of Indian Stream|Border of New Hampshire and Canada]]
 
|'''{{USA}}'''{{GBR}} ''''''
 
|1783
 
|1842
 
|Ill-defined terms of the [[Treaty of Paris (1783)|Treaty of Paris]] at the end of the [[American Revolutionary War|Revolutionary War]] left the boundary of the state of [[New Hampshire]] and Canada in doubt.  The lack of a precise definition of the "northwesternmost head of the Connecticut River" as defined by the [[Treaty of Paris (1783)|Treaty of Paris]] left the land that is now the town of [[Pittsburg, New Hampshire]] within the conflicting jurisdiction of both the United States and Great Britain.  In 1832 residents of the area established the short-lived [[Republic of Indian Stream]] in the area; the minuscule population of the putative nation never exceeded about 300.  The boundary was finally settled definitively by the [[Webster–Ashburton Treaty]] of 1842.
 
|-
 
|[[Sverdrup Islands]]
 
|{{NOR}}
 
{{GBR}}
 
|1928
 
|1930
 
|In 1928 [[Norway]] asserted its claim of sovereignty over the [[Sverdrup Islands]]. The islands are named after Norwegian explorer [[Otto Sverdrup]], who explored and mapped them from 1898 to 1902 with the vessel ''[[Fram]]'', although some were previously inhabited by [[Inuit]] people. Sverdrup claimed the islands for Norway, but the Norwegian government did not pursue the claim until 1928. At that point, the Norwegian government raised the claim, primarily to use the islands as bargaining chips in negotiations with the [[United Kingdom]] over the status of the Arctic island [[Jan Mayen]] and the Antarctic [[Bouvet Island]]. On November 11, 1930, Norway ceded the Sverdrup Islands to Canada, in exchange for British recognition of Norway's sovereignty over [[Jan Mayen]].<ref>{{cite book|first=Pierre|last=Berton|title=The Arctic Grail: the Quest for the North West Passage and the North Pole, 1818–1909|year=1988|publisher=Viking|isbn=978-0-670-82491-5|page=629}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[San Andrés and Providencia]]
 
|'''{{COL}}'''{{NIC}}
 
|1928
 
|2012<ref name="Fallo de 2012 de la Corte Internacional de Justicia">{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/124/17162.pdf |title=Territorial and maritime dispute (Nicaragua vs Colombia) |access-date=23 November 2012 |author=Fallo de 2012 de la [[Corte Internacional de Justicia]] }}</ref>
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Tacna–Arica compromise]]
 
|'''{{CHI}}'''
 
{{PER}}
 
|1883
 
|1929
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Chilean–Peruvian maritime dispute of 2006–2007|Pacific Ocean Sea border]]
 
|'''{{CHL}}'''{{PER}}
 
|1985
 
|2014<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17928.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2014-01-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202143900/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17928.pdf |archive-date=2014-02-02 }}</ref>
 
|
 
|-
 
|[[Erik the Red's Land]]
 
|{{DEN}}''{{NOR}}''
 
|1931
 
|1933<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1933.04.05_greenland.htm |title=Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, Denmark v. Norway, Judgment, 5 September 1933, Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) |publisher=Worldcourts.com |access-date=2015-11-11}}</ref>
 
|
 
|-
 
|{{ill|Isla Portillos|es}}
 
|'''{{CRC}}'''{{NIC}}
 
|2010
 
|2018
 
|On 2 Feb 2018, the [[ICJ]] rendered a decision in a border dispute between Nicaragua and Costa Rica regarding {{ill|Isla Portillos|es}}. Nicaragua was left with just the Laguna Los Portillos and its short strip of beach. The court also decided that the sea just outside of the lagoon would be Costa Rican waters. The ICJ concluded that the whole beach is Costa Rican except for the part directly between the lagoon and the Caribbean Sea – now a tiny enclave of Nicaraguan territory separated from the rest of the country.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.polgeonow.com/2018/02/nicaragua-costa-rica-border-dispute-ruling-icj-2018.html|title=Costa Rica & Nicaragua Settle Border Dispute in Court|work=Political Geography Now|date=3 Feb 2018|access-date=2018-02-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180205072738/http://www.polgeonow.com/2018/02/nicaragua-costa-rica-border-dispute-ruling-icj-2018.html|archive-date=5 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|}
 
===Antarctica===
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Former Claimants
 
!Dispute Started
 
!Dispute Settled
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|[[Bouvet Island]]
 
|'''{{NOR}}'''{{GBR}}
 
|1927
 
|1929
 
|The United Kingdom claimed this Antarctic island as Lindsay/Liverpool Island based on sightings going back to 1808, but Norway landed there in 1927. In November 1929, Britain renounced its claim to the island.<ref>{{cite book |last=Barr |first=Susan |year=1987 |title=Norway's Polar Territories |location=Oslo |publisher=Aschehoug |page=63 |isbn=978-82-03-15689-2}}</ref>
 
|}
 
===Asia===
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Former claimants
 
!Dispute started
 
!Dispute settled
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|[[Tiran Island|Tiran]] and [[Sanafir Island|Sanafir]] Islands
 
|'''{{KSA}}'''{{EGY}}
 
|1906
 
|2017
 
|These islands were transferred to Saudi Arabia in 2017.
 
|-
 
|[[Arabi Island]] and [[Farsi Island]]
 
|''{{flagdeco|Iran|1964}} [[Iran]]{{KSA}}''
 
|
 
|1968
 
|These islands were disputed between Iran and Saudi Arabia. In 1968 Iran and Saudi Arabia had an agreement that Farsi island be given to Iran and Arabi island be given to Saudi Arabia.
 
|-
 
|[[Bay of Bengal]] Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and India
 
|'''{{flagicon|India}} [[India]]{{flagicon|Bangladesh}} [[Bangladesh]]'''
 
|1974
 
|2014
 
|India and Bangladesh had engaged in eight rounds of bilateral negotiations starting 1974 but it remained inconclusive until 2009. In October 2009,  Bangladesh served India with notice of arbitration proceedings under the [[United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea|UNCLOS]] .
 
The Arbitration Tribunal delivered the ruling on 7 July 2014 and settled the dispute.{{citation needed|date=December 2020}}
 
|-
 
|[[Indo-Bangladesh enclaves]], adverse possessions and undemarcated land boundaries
 
|'''{{flagicon|India}} [[India]]{{flagicon|Bangladesh}} [[Bangladesh]]'''
 
|1947
 
|2015
 
|Following [[Partition of Bengal (1947)]], the issues of adverse possessions, enclaves and unmarked boundary arose. Inside the main part of [[Bangladesh]], there were 111 Indian enclaves (17,160.63 acres), while inside the main part of [[India]], there were 51 Bangladeshi enclaves (7,110.02 acres). In 1974 Bangladesh approved a proposed treaty, Land Boundary Agreement, to exchange all enclaves within each other's territories, but India did not ratify it. Another agreement was agreed upon in 2011 to exchange enclaves and adverse possessions.  With respect to adverse possessions, India received 2,777.038 acres of land and transferred 2,267.682 acres to Bangladesh. India ratified the agreement by constitutional amendment in May 2015.<ref name="India 2014">{{cite web | author=India | title=Everything you need to know: Land swap in offing with Bangladesh to end disputes | website=The Indian Express | date=2 December 2014 | url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/explained-land-swap-in-offing/ | access-date=29 May 2015}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Muhurichar]] river island
 
|'''{{flagicon|India}} [[India]]{{BGD}}'''
 
|1974
 
|2011
 
|Historically controlled by [[India]] but claimed by [[Bangladesh]], disputed from approximately 1974.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://newsblaze.com/world/south-asia/india-bangladesh-international-border-disputes-muhuri-river_25541/ |title=India-Bangladesh International Border Disputes - Muhuri River |author=Shib Shankar Chatterjee |website=NewsBlaze |date=18 April 2012}}</ref> An agreement was reached on the demarcation of the border in the area in 2011,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/bangladesh/document/papers/lba2011.pdf |title=PROTOCOL TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE's REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH CONCERNING THE DEMARCATION OF THE LAND BOUNDARY BETWEEN INDIA AND BANGLADESH AND RELATED MATTERS |website=South Asia Terrorism Portal}}</ref> and in 2019 the Indian government confirmed that it no longer had any outstanding boundary dispute with Bangladesh.<ref name="business-standard.com" />
 
|-
 
|[[New Moore / South Talpatti|South Talpatti/New Moore/Purbasha]] Island
 
|'''{{IND}}'''{{BGD}}
 
|c. 1975
 
|2010
 
|This former dispute over a small island never more than two meters above sea level was contested from the island's appearance in the 1970s to its disappearance, likely due to climate change,<ref name="Wade">{{cite web |url=http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rising-sea-level-settles-border-dispute-20100324-qwum.html |title=Rising sea level settles border dispute |last1=Wade |first1=Matt |date=March 25, 2010 |website=The Sydney Morning Herald |access-date=April 4, 2010}}</ref> in the first decade of the 2000s.  Though land disputes no longer exist, the maritime boundary was not settled until 2014.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8584665.stm | work=BBC News | title=Bay of Bengal island 'disappears' | date=2010-03-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1817/18170730.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010908035225/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1817/18170730.htm|title=Of Indo-Bangladesh distrust|author=A. G. Noorani|archive-date=2001-09-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/disputed-isle-in-bay-of-bengal-vanishes-20100324-qwy0.html|title=Disputed isle in Bay of Bengal vanishes|first=Nirmala|last=George|date=March 24, 2010}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Sakhalin Island]]
 
|''{{flag|Russian Empire}}{{flag|Empire of Japan}}''
 
|1845
 
|1875
 
|Japan unilaterally proclaimed sovereignty over the whole island in 1845, but its claims were ignored by the Russian Empire. The 1855 [[Treaty of Shimoda]] acknowledged that both Russia and Japan had joint rights of occupation to Sakhalin, without setting a definite territorial demarcation. As the island became settled in the 1860s and 1870s, this ambiguity led to increasing friction between settlers. Attempts by the Tokugawa shogunate to purchase the entire island from the Russian Empire failed, and the new Meiji government was unable to negotiate a partition of the island into separate territories.
 
In 1875 by the [[Treaty of Saint Petersburg (1875)|Treaty of Saint Petersburg]], Japan agreed to give up its claims on Sakhalin in exchange for undisputed ownership of the Kuril Islands.  In 1905 under the [[Treaty of Portsmouth]] Japan gained Sakhalin to the 60th parallel, but lost it again in 1945.
 
|-
 
|[[Miangas|Palmas Island]] (modern-day Miangas Island)
 
|''{{flagicon|Philippines|1919}} [[Insular Government|Philippine Islands]]{{flag|Dutch East Indies}}''
 
|1906
 
|1928
 
|Dispute between the United States and the Netherlands over the Palmas island located south of the Philippines, which was then American territory. The Netherlands believed that the islands were part of the Dutch East Indies. The territorial dispute was solved through the [[Island of Palmas case]] which decided that the Palmas Island belongs to the Netherlands. Palmas Island, now Miangas Island, is a part of modern [[Indonesia]].
 
|-
 
|[[Shaksgam Valley]]
 
|{{flag|Pakistan}}(still claimed by:
 
{{flag|India}}
 
'''{{PRC}}'''<ref name="China1" group="note" />{{ROC}}<ref name="China1" group="note" />)
 
|1947
 
|1963
 
|Pakistan relinquished its claim to the People's Republic of China; India did not.
 
|-
 
|[[Sinai Peninsula]]
 
|'''{{flag|Israel}}'''{{flag|Egypt|1972}}
 
|1967
 
|1982
 
|During the [[Six-Day War]] [[Israel]] claimed Sinai. It was returned in 1982 under the terms of the 1979 [[Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty]].
 
|-
 
|[[Taba, Egypt#History|Taba]]
 
|'''{{flag|Israel}}'''{{flag|Egypt|1972}}
 
|1979
 
|1989
 
|When Egypt and Israel were negotiating the exact position of the border in preparation for the 1979 peace treaty, Israel claimed that Taba had been on the Ottoman side of a border agreed between the Ottomans and British Egypt in 1906 and had, therefore, been in error in its two previous agreements. Although most of Sinai was returned to Egypt in 1982, Taba was the last portion to be returned. The issue was submitted to an international commission. In 1988, the commission ruled in Egypt's favour, and Israel returned Taba to Egypt in 1989.
 
|-
 
|[[Phú Quốc]] island and [[Thổ Chu Islands]] area
 
|'''{{VIE}}{{KHM}}'''
 
|
 
|1982
 
|In 1939, Governor General of Indochina, Jules Brévié, sent a letter to the Governor of Cochinchina about “the issue of the islands in the Gulf of Siam whose is a matter of controversy between Cambodia and Cochin-China”. In this letter,“for administrative purposes”, he drew a line which defined the border between the waters of Cambodia and Cochin-China: all the islands north of the line are under Cambodian sovereignty, all the islands south of the line are ruled by Cochin-China. As a result, Phú Quốc was under Cochinchina administration. In 1949, Cochin-China became part of Vietnam, an Associated State in the French Union within the Indochinese Federation. After the Geneva Accords, in 1954, its sovereignty was handed over to the State of Vietnam. In 1964, then Head of State Prince Norodom Sihanouk proposed to the Vietnamese a map aimed at settling the issue. Cambodia offered to accept the colonial “Brévié Line” as the maritime boundary, thus abandoning its claim. That position of Cambodia was confirmed by maps given to the mission sent by the UN Security Council after the Chantrea incidents. On June 8, 1967, the Vietnamese issued a declaration that accepted the “Brévié Line” as the maritime border. On May 1, 1975, a squad of [[Khmer Rouge]] soldiers raided and took Phú Quốc, but Vietnam soon recaptured it. This was to be the first of a series of incursions and counter-incursions that would escalate to the [[Cambodian–Vietnamese War]] in 1979. Cambodia dropped its claims to Phú Quốc in 1976.<ref>Hanns Jürgen Buchholz. [https://books.google.com/books?id=2KZEEuaS6RIC&pg=PA41&dq=phu+quoc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBjgoahUKEwid5ezF1bTIAhVHNYgKHWLDADA#v=onepage&q=phu%20quoc&f=false Law of the Sea Zones in the Pacific Ocean]. Retrieved 2015-10-09. p.41</ref> But the bone of contention involving the island between the governments of the two countries continued, as both have a historical claim to it and the surrounding waters. A July 1982 agreement between Vietnam and The [[People's Republic of Kampuchea]] ostensibly settled the dispute; however, it is still the object of irredentist sentiments.
 
|-
 
|[[Turtle Islands, Tawi-Tawi|Turtle Islands]]
 
|''{{flagicon|Philippines|1919}} [[Insular Government|Philippine Islands]]{{flag|North Borneo}}''
 
|
 
|1930
 
|Dispute between the United States and the United Kingdom over the [[Turtle Islands, Tawi-Tawi|Turtle Islands]] located south of the Philippines, which was then American territory. In a 1930 treaty the United Kingdom acknowledge American sovereignty over the islands and was agreed upon that the British would remain administering the island until the United States express interest to take over control over the islands after a one-year notice. When the Philippines gained full independence from the United States in 1946, the Philippines invoked the treaty and the British turned over the islands to the Philippines in 1947.
 
|-
 
|[[West Bank]], including [[East Jerusalem]]
 
|'''{{flag|Israel}}'''{{flag|Jordan}}
 
|1967
 
|1988
 
|During the [[Six-Day War]] [[Israel]] conquered these territories from Jordan. Jordan later renounced the claim on the territory, supporting instead its inclusion in a future Palestine.
 
|-
 
|[[Ligitan]] and [[Sipadan]]
 
|'''{{MYS}}'''{{IDN}}
 
|1969
 
|2002
 
|The 2002 International Court of Justice ruling awarded both islands to Malaysia, but left unsettled the [[maritime boundary]] immediately southwest and west of the islands between Malaysia and Indonesia.
 
|-
 
|[[Hawar Islands]]
 
|{{flag|Qatar}}{{flag|Bahrain|1972}}
 
|1971
 
|2001
 
|Formerly disputed between Qatar and Bahrain, it was settled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. In the June 2001 decision, Bahrain kept the Hawar Islands and [[Qit'at Jaradah]] but dropped claims to Janan Island and Zubarah on mainland Qatar, while Qatar retained significant maritime areas and their resources. The agreement has furthered the goal of definitively establishing the border with Saudi Arabia and Saudi-led mediation efforts continue.
 
|-
 
|[[Batek Island]]
 
|'''{{IDN}}'''{{ETM}}
 
|2002
 
|2004
 
|Ceded by Timor-Leste to Indonesia in August 2004.
 
|-
 
|Saudi Arabia–Yemen border demarcation dispute
 
|''{{SAU}}{{YEM}}''
 
|1934
 
|2000
 
|Settled by the [[Treaty of Jeddah (2000)]].
 
|}
 
===Europe===
 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
!Territory
 
!Former claimants
 
!Dispute started
 
!Dispute settled
 
!Notes
 
|-
 
|[[Baltic Sea]]
 
|'''{{flag|Poland}}'''{{flag|Denmark}}
 
|1978
 
|2018
 
|Poland has decided to cede to Denmark 80 percent of disputed territory<ref>{{Cite news|title=Poland and Denmark sign agreement on maritime boundary in the Baltic Sea|url=https://www.msp-platform.eu/events/poland-and-denmark-sign-agreement-maritime-boundary-baltic-sea |date=28 November 2018}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Bregovo]]
 
|'''{{flag|Bulgaria}}'''{{flag|Kingdom of Serbia}}
 
|1885
 
|1886
 
|Bulgaria and Serbia [[Serbo-Bulgarian War|briefly had a war]] over a small border village called Bregovo and this has been the recognized border ever since then.
 
|-
 
|[[Åland Islands]]
 
|'''{{flag|Finland}}'''{{flag|Sweden}}
 
|1917
 
|1921
 
|Sweden and Finland argued over the control of the Åland Islands (located between Sweden and Finland). The Åland movement (Ålandsrörelsen) wanted Åland to reunite with its old mother country Sweden (Finland and Åland belonged to Sweden before 1809). The movement gathered signatures from over 7000 inhabitants of legal age at the Åland Islands in 1917 (that was about 96% of the population) - they all supported a union with Sweden. When [[Independence of Finland|Finland became independent]] (December 6, 1917) Sweden wanted a plebiscite about the future of the Åland Islands to solve the problem. Finland refused and argued that the Åland Islands had always been a natural part of Finland - even when Finland was under Swedish rule. Sweden appealed to the [[League of Nations]] referring to the right of the population to determine which country they should belong to. After studying the matter closely the League of Nations decided Finland should retain sovereignty over the province but that the Åland Islands should be made an autonomous territory. The Swedish Prime Minister said he didn't accept the verdict but he also said that Sweden was not going to use military force to get their claims.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.macgregorishistory.com/english/ib/League%20of%20Nations/lon1920.html|website = MacGregor is History |title = Disputes in the League of Nations in the 1920's|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120616144657/http://www.macgregorishistory.com/english/ib/League%20of%20Nations/lon1920.html|archive-date = 16 June 2012}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Graham Island (Mediterranean Sea)|Graham Island]]
 
|'''{{flag|Two Sicilies}}'''{{flagicon|Malta|1814}} [[Malta Colony|Malta]]
 
{{flag|France}}{{flag|Spain|1785}}
 
|1831
 
|1831
 
|A dispute between the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the British Crown Colony of Malta, the Kingdom of France and the Kingdom of Spain occurred after the volcanic island appeared in 1831. The British were the first to claim the island as part of Malta, and they were followed by the Two Sicilies and France, while Spain expressed their ambitions to control the island. The island disappeared by December 1831 and the dispute stopped. A Sicilian flag was lowered over the now submerged island in 2000 to show Italian claims to the area. It is no longer disputed by Britain, France, Spain or Malta.
 
|-
 
|[[Lampedusa]]
 
|'''{{flagicon|Kingdom of Sicily}} [[Kingdom of Sicily|Sicily]]'''{{flagicon|Malta|1814}} [[Malta Protectorate|Malta]]
 
|1800
 
|1814
 
|The island was controlled by British troops as a ''de facto'' part of the Malta Protectorate from 1800 onwards. After a British royal commission was sent there in 1812, the new Governor of Malta Sir Thomas Maitland withdrew British troops and the island was returned to Sicily.
 
|-
 
|[[Tenedos]]
 
|'''{{TUR}}'''{{flag|Greece|old}}
 
|1920
 
|1923
 
|On 11 August 1920, following World War I, the [[Treaty of Sèvres]] with the defeated [[Ottoman Empire]] granted the island to Greece, who joined the war in Allies' side in May 1917. The new Turkish Government of [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]], based in Ankara, which was not party to the treaty, overthrew the Ottoman government, which signed but did not ratify the treaty. After the [[Turkish War of Independence]] ended in Greek defeat in Anatolia, and the fall of [[David Lloyd George]] and his Middle Eastern policies after the [[Carlton Club meeting]], the western powers agreed to the [[Treaty of Lausanne]] with the new Turkish Republic, in 1923. This treaty made Tenedos and Imbros part of Turkey, and it guaranteed a special autonomous administrative status there to accommodate the Greeks.
 
|-
 
|[[Northern Ireland]]
 
|'''{{flag|United Kingdom}}'''{{flag|Ireland}}
 
|1920
 
|1998
 
|Formerly disputed between Ireland and the United Kingdom since partition on 23 December 1920, it was settled by the [[Good Friday Agreement]] in 1998, when Ireland amended its [[Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland|constitutional]] claim. Both countries acknowledged that the territory can join the rest of Ireland if separate referendums in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland approve of the former's cession.
 
|-
 
|[[Pytalovo]] ([[Pytalovo|Abrene]] in Latvia)
 
|'''{{flag|Russia}}'''{{flag|Latvia}}
 
|1991
 
|2007
 
|Pytalovo was a village in the parish of [[Vyshgorodok|Vyshgorogok]], the westernmost part of the [[Ostrov, Ostrovsky District, Pskov Oblast|Ostrov]] uyezd, [[Pskov Governorate|Governorate of Pskov]] that was ceded from [[RSFSR]] to [[Latvia]] under the [[Peace of Riga|Treaty of Riga]] (1920) along with parishes of Kachanovo and Tonkovo. In 1940 Latvian Republic was annexed by the [[Soviet Union]] and [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvian SSR]] was established, encompassing the above named territories until 1944 when they were transferred to the district of Ostrov, [[Pskov Oblast]], RSFSR.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=http://www.bestpravo.com/sssr/eh-praktika/o4w.htm|title=Указ Президиума ВС СССР от 23.08.1944 Об образовании Псковской области в составе РСФСР (Decree of the Supreme Council of USSR on establishing the Pskov Oblast within the RSFSR)|website=www.bestpravo.com|access-date=2018-12-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229033553/http://www.bestpravo.com/sssr/eh-praktika/o4w.htm|archive-date=2016-12-29|url-status=dead}}</ref> Since 1991 reestablished Republic of Latvia disputed Russian jurisdiction over the region until the border treaty with Russia was signed in 2007.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/bilateral-relations/relation-profile/relations-between-latvia-and-russia/the-republic-of-latvia-and-the-russian-federation-treaty-on-the-state-border-of-latvia-and-russia |website=www.mfa.gov.lv|title = The Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation Treaty On the State Border of Latvia and Russia|date= 4 April 2007}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Ivangorod]], [[Izborsk]] and [[Pechorsky District]]
 
|'''{{RUS}}'''{{EST}}
 
|1991
 
|2007
 
|As of 1916, Ivangorod, the eastern suburb of [[Narva]], constituted the westernmost town of the [[Saint Petersburg Governorate|St.Petersburg Governorate]] on the border with the [[Governorate of Estonia]]. The towns of Pechory and Izborsk with respective parishes were the westernmost parts of the [[Pskov Governorate|Governorate of Pskov]]. Under the [[Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian)|Treaty of Tartu]], 1920 the above territories were ceded from [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|RSFSR]] to the newly established [[Republic of Estonia]] that was annexed by the [[Soviet Union|USSR]] in 1940 as the [[Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic|Estonian SSR]]. In 1944 with two decrees of the USSR supreme Council the city of Narva and vicinity was split along [[Narva River|Narova]] river leaving Narva with Estonia and Ivangorod with the [[Leningrad Oblast|Leningrad oblast]]. Pechory, Izborsk and Panikovichi with respective parishes as well as certain areas of Slobodskaya parish were transferred to the Pskov Oblast. Exception was made for some rural areas of the borderland populated by ethnic Estonians leaving these with Estonian SSR.<ref name=":1" /> After the fall of the Soviet Union this caused a territorial dispute that was resolved by the Russian-Estonian Border Treaty.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA1H0QN20140218|title=After 20 years, Russia and Estonia sign border treaty|date=2014-02-18|work=Reuters|access-date=2018-12-18|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://vm.ee/sites/default/files/content-editors/web-static/394/Est-Rus_border_treaty.pdf|website=vm.ee|title = The Estonian-Russian Border Treaty Between The Republic of Estonia and The Russian Federation}}</ref>  Some sources argue Estonia might have claims in the area.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.epl.ee/news/arvamus/eiki-berg-milleks-meile-idapiir-ja-ilma-lepinguta.d?id=51101814 |title=EIKI BERG: Milleks meile idapiir ja ilma lepinguta?|date=20 September 2007|website=Eesti Päevaleht|access-date=5 October 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.epl.ee/news/eesti/enn-eesmaa-vaide-petseri-soovist-on-ennekoike-provokatiivne.d?id=51176007|title=Enn Eesmaa: väide Petseri-soovist on ennekõike provokatiivne|date=21 August 2009|website=Eesti Päevaleht|access-date=5 October 2014}}</ref>
 
|-
 
|[[Sevastopol]]
 
|'''{{flag|Russia}}'''{{flag|Ukraine}}
 
|1993
 
|1997
 
|On July 28, 1993, one of the leaders of the Russian Society of Crimea, Viktor Prusakov, stated that his organisation was ready for an armed mutiny and establishment of the Russian administration in Sevastopol. In May 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed the Peace and Friendship Treaty, ruling out Moscow's territorial claims to Ukraine.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Review of Ukraine base lease 'fatal,' Russia warns|url=http://english.people.com.cn/200512/28/eng20051228_231329.html|newspaper=People's Daily|location=Beijing, China|date=28 December 2005|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060117111808/http://english.people.com.cn/200512/28/eng20051228_231329.html|archive-date=17 January 2006|url-status=dead|access-date=12 June 2012}}</ref> However, the dispute would be revived after the [[Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present)|Russian military intervention in Ukraine]] and the [[Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|annexation of Crimea]] in 2014.
 
|-
 
|[[Maritime delimitation between Romania and Ukraine|Black Sea]] and [[Snake Island (Black Sea)|Snake Island]]
 
|'''{{flag|Ukraine}}'''{{flag|Romania}}
 
|2004
 
|2009
 
|In 2004 Romania filed a case to [[International Court of Justice]] claiming that Ukraine's Snake Island was an uninhabitable rock under [[UNCLOS]] standards and thus not eligible to carry influence over determination of the maritime boundary between the two states. During the Soviet times the island was a small naval station with a lighthouse. In 2007 the Ukrainian parliament approved an establishment of a small hamlet (settlement) there, ''Bile'', as part of Vylkove city [[Odessa Oblast|Odessa Region]].  The maritime boundary issue was settled by the [[International Court of Justice]] in 2009.
 
|-
 
|[[Vilnius Region]]
 
|'''{{flag|Lithuania}}'''{{flag|Poland}}
 
|1920
 
|1945
 
|During the [[Polish-Soviet War]] Polish armies entered the Vilnius Region which was at the time part of the Soviet [[Lithuanian-Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic]]. In 1920, Polish General [[Lucjan Zeligowski]] led [[Zeligowski's Mutiny|a coup]] and established the [[Republic of Central Lithuania]] which was annexed to the [[Second Polish Republic]] after the war as part of the historic [[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth]] and due to [[Poles in Lithuania|ethnic Poles in the region]]. Lithuania [[Temporary capital of Lithuania|moved its capital]] to [[Kaunas]] while never giving up its claim to Vilnius. The Lithuanians found support in the Soviet Union for their cause signing the [[Soviet-Lithuanian Mutual Assistance Treaty]] in 1939. Following the [[Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)|Soviet invasion of Poland]], the region came under Soviet control and became part of the [[Lithuanian SSR]] after World War II which was followed by a large number of ethnic Poles being deported [[Polish population transfers (1944-1946)|two]] [[Repatriation of Poles (1955-1959)|times]]. Following the [[fall of the Soviet Union]] and [[Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania]] the Vilnius region became part of Lithuania again.
 
|-
 
|[[Passetto di Borgo]] in the vicinity of the [[Vatican City]]
 
|'''{{ITA}}'''{{flag|Holy See}}
 
|1870
 
|1991
 
|[[Pope John Paul II]] recognized the sovereignty of Italy over the Passetto on May 18, 1991.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hemeroteca.abc.es/nav/Navigate.exe/hemeroteca/madrid/abc/1991/08/06/051.html|title=ABC (Madrid) - 06/08/1991, p. 51 - ABC.es Hemeroteca|website=hemeroteca.abc.es|access-date=30 June 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/7th-september-1990/1/papal-passage-ceded|title=Catholic Herald|website=CatholicHerald.co.uk|access-date=5 October 2014}}</ref>
 
|}
 
==Notes==
 
{{reflist|group="note"}}
 
==See also==
 
{{Div col|colwidth=30em}}
 
* [[Demilitarized zone]]
 
* [[Dependent territory]]
 
* [[Frozen conflict]]
 
* [[List of border conflicts]]
 
* [[List of countries and territories by land and maritime borders]]
 
* [[List of sovereign states]]
 
* [[Lists of active separatist movements]]
 
* [[Neutral territory]]
 
* [[List of administrative divisions by country]]
 
* [[Territorial claims in the Arctic]]
 
* [[Territorial disputes in the Persian Gulf]]
 
* [[List of internal boundary disputes in the Philippines]]
 
{{div col end}}
 
==References==
 
{{reflist}}
 
==External links==
 
 
*{{cite web|title=Government Statistics: Transnational Issues: Disputes: International (most recent) by country |publisher=Nation Master|url=http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_tra_iss_dis_int-government-transnational-issues-disputes-international}}
 
 
{{Territorial disputes in Western Asia}} {{Territorial disputes in East, South, and Southeast Asia}}
 
 
==References and Notes==
 
==References and Notes==
 
===References===
 
===References===

Revision as of 07:38, 22 July 2021

The diplomatic foreign relations of Indradhanush are conducted and maintained under the joint prerogative of the Monarch of Indradhanush and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Relations usually headed by the Prime Minister of Indradhanush. All the treaties of diplomatic relations must be signed by the monarch of Indradhanush or the Minister of External Affairs as the chief ambassador of the nation. Indradhanush distinguishes two types of diplomatic relations, formal, which are obtained via treaty, and informal, specified by documents of common micronational organizations. All formal relations must be established with the signing of a treaty of mutual recognition, friendship and cooperation or any other form of diplomatic relations treaty provided by either by the government of Indradhanush or the nation with whom, the relations are being sought.

The State was a member of the Micronational Assembly and helped in the formation of the MID Act[1].

(From left to right: Portrait of His Majesty Chandrachur Basu and Prime Minister Zarel Smith)

History

Indradhanush established the Ministry of Foreign Affairs soon after his foundation on 13 February 2021. The ministry was initially viewed as a nominal department in the government due to Indradhanush being a young nation. One of the most important steps taken by the country was on 2 April 2021 issued a proclamation granting unilateral recognition to all the 193 member states of the United Nations and the two observer nations of Holy See and the State of Palestine along with the Republic of China or Taiwan.

Foreign and diplomatic policy

Indradhanush maintains a neutral foreign policy with all the nations it currently has formal bilateral and diplomatic relations. The fundamental and core aim of the nation is to promote peace, prosperity and happiness with all other nations and establish relations where all nations mutually contributes to the promotion of world peace. Indradhanush is a signatory of the Union Against Micronational War and hence does not recognize micronational wars and neither does participate nor encourage micronational wars[a]. The nation has always expressed its strong stance against micronational wars and termed it to be as "time pass" and a "waste". The nation also expresses its neutrality but though doesn't stay away from making any comments on territorial and sovereignty disputes of other nations such as Vancouver island territorial dispute and the Great Des Plaines Valley War. Indradhanush fully adheres to the terms and conditions laid forth by the Wrythe Convention, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. These conventions are considered rulebooks of micronational and international diplomacy. Indradhanush also aims to establish the peaceful resolution of intermicronational disputes, respect for intermicronational laws and the creation of principles regarding what was to be considered acts of aggression to micronational sovereignty.

Current foreign policy

The current foreign policy of Indradhanush was implemented on 3 April 2020 and became effective from the same day. The current foreign policy has been extensively templated from the foreign policy of Vishwamitra. Indradhanush is strict with regards to following the foreign policy. It also lays immense light on the adherence of the terms and conditions of the Wrythe Convention, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which Indradhanush are signatories. The current foreign policy is as follows:

  • The nation must have a proper constitution or a declaration of independence.
  • The nation must have proper claims, and at least some of the land shall be able to be visited by foot.
  • The nation must respect Indradhanush, its system of government, its culture, tradition and vice versa.
  • The nation must not be indulged in any form of war, conflict and should not encourage it and nor should illegally claim sovereignty over any other nation.
  • The nation must have a stable system of government with detailed information on its system of government.
  • The nation must be on any form of social sites - MicroWiki, website, Discord, Twitter, Facebook, etc where information regarding the nation shall be collected and can be contacted.
  • The nation must have a stable population (more than 5) and the information regarding the population shall be true.
  • The nation must recognise, respect and adhere to the terms and conditions laid forth by the conventions that Indradhanush have signed (It is not mandatory for the nation to be signatories).

Any nation that satisfies the mentioned terms and conditions as per the foreign policy is eligible for establishing bilateral relations with the country.

Diplomatic missions and staffs

Indradhanush has the following diplomatic embassy:-

Sovereignty disputes

Bilateral relations

Current bilateral relations

The nations which currently maintain formal bilateral and diplomatic relations with Indradhanush have been listed in this section. The nations have been arranged in the order of date of establishment of relations.

Sixth Aenderese Republic

Other names:- छठवीं एन्देरइस गणराज्य (Hindi), ষষ্ঠ আয়েন্দেরেসে প্রজাতন্ত্র (Bengali), Sixième Aenderese République (French)

The State of Indradhanush and Aenderia began in 27 February 2021 which were formalised following the official beginning of bilateral relations on 15 April 2020 following the signing of a treaty of friendship and mutual recognition between the two nations[2]. The treaty was presented from Indradhanush and signed by His Majesty Chandrachur Basu, whereas President Lavtev signed on behalf of the Aenderese government. The relations have been cordial between the two nations and regular series of communications have been maintained at the highest levels.

Chandrachur Basu also was an MP in the Parliament of Aenderia. He founded the Aenderian National Congress and joined the AUAF (Aenderians United Against Fascism) Coalition against the new Pro-Fascism Parties.

Aenderia is currently the longest-continuing ally of Indradhanush.


Republic of Xahastan

Other names:- सहस्तान गणराज्य (Hindi), সাহাস্তান প্রজাতন্ত্র (Bengali)

Limbonian Federal Republic

Other names:- संघीय लिंबोनियन गणराज्य (Hindi), ফেডারেল লিম্বোনিয়ান প্রজাতন্ত্র (Bengali), Pederal Limbonian Republik (Tagalog/ Filipino)

Notes
[3]
[4]

Countries whom Indradhanush has informal relations

The nations which currently maintain informal diplomatic relations with Indradhanush have been listed in this section.

Sl No Micronation Macronation Relations
1 Lakeland  USA Good
2  Wynnland  USA Neutral

Countries whom Indradhanush has embassies

The nations which currently maintain embassies with Indradhanush have been listed in this section.

1  New Athens  USA Neutral
2  Waterside Park  USA Neutral

Multilateral treaties and conventions

This table shows the treaties and conventions that Indradhanush has signed. The treaties have been arranged in the order of date of signing of the said treaty.

Multilateral Treaty/Convention Signed on Status of signatory Notes
Union Against Micronational War

सूक्ष्मराष्ट्रीय युद्ध के खिलाफ संघ (Hindi)

মাইক্রোনেশনাল যুদ্ধের বিরুদ্ধে ইউনিয়ন (Bengali)

Immediately after foundation Subsequent signatory
Logo of the Union Against Micronational War.
Indradhanush became a signatory of the Union Against Micronational War immediately after its foundation with the nation's notion to promote peace and prosperity. Indradhanush does not believe in micronational war and does not support nor encourage it. The goal of the Union Against Micronational War is neutrality in any micronational conflict. It also condemns any kind of war, both micronational and macronational. The Union Against Micronational War defines micronational war as a hostile conflict between two micronational entities. Such conflict is viewed as sometimes more accurately described as a conflict between individual micronational leaders. Such conflicts are condemned, especially when the actions of the belligerents are destructive, unethical, or illegal.
Charter of the Grand Unified Micronational

ग्रैंड यूनिफाइड माइक्रोनॉशनल का घोषणापत्र (Hindi)

গ্র্যান্ড ইউনিফাইড মাইক্রোনালিয়াল এর ঘোষণাচিঠি (Bengali)

Immediately after foundation Signatory Indradhanush became a signatory of the Charter of the Grand Unified Micronational immediately after its foundation.
Wrythe Convention

व्राइथ सम्मेलन (Hindi)

উরিথে সম্মেলন (Bengali)

26 February 2021 Subsequent signatory
Scanned image of Indradhanush signing the Wrythe Convention
Indradhanush became one of the subsequent signatories of the Wrythe Convention[5] on 26 February 2021 having successfully ratified the terms and objectives laid forth by the convention. The convention which condemns sockpuppeting, identity theft, and false claims within micronationalism. Signatories to the convention pledge to not enter into relations with any entities engaged in fabrications and falsehoods, and by signing the treaty reserve the right to suspend or revoke recognition of any entities found to have engaged in such behaviour. Indradhanush has been successful in implementing the terms laid forth by the Wrythe Convention in its foreign policy and also encouraged other nations to be a signatory of this convention.
Sough2020 Convention on Global Climate Change

वैश्विक जलवायु परिवर्तन पर सौह2020 सम्मेलन (Hindi)

বিশ্বব্যাপী জলবায়ু পরিবর্তন সম্পর্কিত সম্মেলন (Bengali)

26 February 2021 Subsequent signatory
Logo of Sough2020 designed by Logan Ross.
Indradhanush became one of the subsequent signatories of the Sough2020 Convention on Global Climate Change or Sough2020 on 26 February 2021 having successfully ratified the terms and objectives laid forth by the convention. The convention aimed towards micronational action regarding climate change, pollution and negative human interactions with the natural world and establish long-term goals are to lower micronational carbon footprints through indirect means such as encouraging greener forms of transportation and covered subjects such as pollution, environmental destruction, mass extinction of species and other forms of negative impacts on the natural world from human interaction. Apart from being a signatory of the convention, Indradhanush also supports the Vishwamitran proposal for the formation of an intermicronational organization based for environment related affairs and for hosting a summit based on the foundations of the convention, inspired from the annual United Nations Climate Change conferences.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

राजनयिक संबंधों पर वियना कन्वेंशन (Hindi)

কূটনৈতিক সম্পর্ক সম্পর্কিত ভিয়েনা কনভেনশন

(Bengali)

1 March 2021 Signatory Indradhanush became one of the signatories of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

It signed the original copy of the Convention, which is in English, French, Russian, Spanish and Chinese, with the help of Wikipedia.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is an international treaty that defines a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries. It specifies the privileges of a diplomatic mission that enable diplomats to perform their function without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country. This forms the legal basis for diplomatic immunity. Its articles are considered a cornerstone of modern international relations.

In the same year that the treaty was adopted, two amendment protocols were added. Countries may ratify the main treaty without necessarily ratifying these optional agreements.

  • Concerning acquisition of nationality. The head of the mission, the staff of the mission, and their families, shall not acquire the nationality of the receiving country.
  • Concerning compulsory settlement of disputes. Disputes arising from the interpretation of this treaty may be brought before the International Court of Justice.

Indradhanush did not sign these additional amendment protocols.

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1 March 2021 Signatory Indradhanush became one of the signatories of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

It signed the original copy of the Convention, which is in English, French, Russian, Spanish and Chinese, with the help of Wikipedia.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is an international treaty that defines a framework for consular relations between sovereign states. It codifies many consular practices that originated from state custom and various bilateral agreements between states.[6]

Consuls have traditionally been employed to represent the interests of state's or their nationals at an embassy or consulate in another country. The Convention defines and articulates the functions, rights, and immunities accorded to consular officers and their offices, as well as the rights and duties of "receiving States" (where the consul is based) and "sending States" (the state the consul represents).

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 2 April 2021 Signatory The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is an international agreement regulating treaties between states.[7] Known as the "treaty on treaties", it establishes comprehensive rules, procedures, and guidelines for how treaties are defined, drafted, amended, interpreted, and generally operated.[8] An international treaty is a written agreement between international law subjects reflecting their consent to the creation, alteration, or termination of their rights and obligations.[9] The VCLT is considered a codification of customary international law and state practice concerning treaties.[10]

The VCLT is regarded as one of the most important instruments in treaty law and remains an authoritative guide in disputes over treaty interpretation.[10]

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 2 April 2021 Signatory The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933, during the Seventh International Conference of American States. The Convention codifies the declarative theory of statehood as accepted as part of customary international law.[11]
2015 Paris Agreement 2 April 2021 Signatory The Paris Agreement (French: Accord de Paris) is an international treaty on climate change, adopted in 2015. It covers climate change mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Agreement was negotiated by 196 parties at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference near Paris, France.

The Paris Agreement was opened for signature on 22 April 2016 (Earth Day) at a ceremony in New York. After the European Union ratified the agreement, sufficient countries had ratified the Agreement responsible for enough of the world's greenhouse gases for the Agreement to enter into force on 4 November 2016. As of July 2021, 191 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are parties to the agreement. Of the six UNFCCC member states which have not ratified the agreement, the only major emitters are Iran, Turkey, and Iraq (though the president has approved that country's accession). The United States withdrew from the Agreement in 2020, but rejoined in 2021.

The Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal is to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), recognising that this would substantially reduce the impacts of climate change. Emissions should be reduced as soon as possible and reach net-zero in the second half of the 21st century. It aims to increase the ability of parties to adapt to climate change impacts, and mobilise sufficient finance. Under the Agreement, each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on its contributions. No mechanism forces a country to set specific emissions targets, but each target should go beyond previous targets. In contrast to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the distinction between developed and developing countries is blurred, so that the latter also have to submit plans for emission reductions.

Membership of intermicronational organizations

Flag of the Micronational Assembly

Micronational Assembly

Indradhanush joined the Micronational Assembly being accepted to the organization by its members, initially, as an observer nation and was later promoted as a full member nation on 29 March 2021. Indradhanush became an important part of the organization especially from its professional point of view and created the MID Act[12] within the organization. Indradhanush also served as the Minister of MicroWiki Improvement.

References and Notes

References

  1. Chandrachur Basu, 10 March 2021 Micronational Assembly MID Act
  2. Aenderia and Indradhanush sign a Mutual Recognition Treaty
  3. Xahastan and Indradhanush sign a Treaty of Mutual Recognition
  4. Limbonia and Indradhanush sign a Mutual Recognition Treaty
  5. Chandrachur Basu. "Indradhanush signs the Wrythe Convention".
  6. Michael John Garcia, "Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Overview of U.S. Implementation and International Court of Justice (ICJ) Interpretation of Consular Notification Requirements", CRS Report for Congress (May 17, 2004), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32390.pdf
  7. "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties | History & Summary". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
  8. Anthony, Aust (2006). "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)" (in en). Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. doi:10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/e1498. ISBN 9780199231690. https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1498. 
  9. capt. Enchev, V. (2012), Fundamentals of Maritime Law Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css must have content model "Sanitized CSS" for TemplateStyles (current model is "CSS").Script error: No such module "Catalog lookup link".Script error: No such module "check isxn".
  10. 10.0 10.1 "50 Years Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties". juridicum.univie.ac.at (in Deutsch). Retrieved 2019-11-12.
  11. Hersch Lauterpacht (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 419. ISBN 9781107609433. https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419. 
  12. Chandrachur Basu MID Act

Notes

  1. Though its precedessor, Republic of Lowenia involved itself in micronational wars. It later though signed the Union Against Micronational War.