Talk:Government-in-exile
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Index
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This one was in micronations but belongs here
[edit]- In Germany, several individuals and groups—collectively labeled Kommissarische Reichsregierungen (KRR)—assert that the German Empire continues to exist in its pre-World War II borders and that they are its government, or government-in-exile.[1]
References
- ^ Thiriet, Maurice (11 March 2009). ""Reichsführerschein" im Thurgau nicht gültig". Tages-Anzeiger (in German). Retrieved 2009-03-25.
- Absolutely rubbish. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:A930:5222:D33C:40F4 (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
CRPH Myanmar
[edit]Why it is not exist on the list while widely recognized as the civilian government-in-exile? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_Representing_Pyidaungsu_Hluttaw
The 
Kingdom of Sikkim government-in-exile should be added to this page.
- SUPPORT Absolutely agree. The Himalayan country has been occupied by India for 49 years now. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:A930:5222:D33C:40F4 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Rights of government-in-exile
[edit]From information available on US Legal, it listed all the rights of a government-in-exile. I added a section called "Rights" to expand it.
AndyTheGrump wɔːr (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The 'US Legal' website you linked is a generalist commercial website for US law, offering advice to consumers, rather than the sort of peer-reviewed academic source we'd need to make general assertions regarding any 'rights' under international law for governments-in-exile. The page you link is nothing but a confusingly-worded attempt at a definition. It is clearly not a reliable source for the content you added. None of the remaining sources were of any relevance whatsoever, given that they merely documented that certain governments-in-exile (self-described or otherwise), were doing certain things - not that international law afforded such actions any specific legitimacy etc. They cannot be cited for assertions about international law.
- Frankly, I think that any attempt to create a section on the supposed 'rights' of governments-in-exile in general is inherently flawed. No such generalist 'rights' can possibly exist, given that more or less anyone can call themselves a 'government-in-exile'. In as much as a specific body acquires 'rights', it will do so as a result of specific recognition, by legitimate sovereign states, or by intergovernmental organisations, for that particular body. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting to see your points.I wish to know how your arrived that US Law is just commercial website. For the single fact that government-in-exile means government-in-exile, it's not always the case they are recognised by any international law. wɔːr (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Re commercial website, see [1] and [2]. As for your comment about recognition, that is precisely why general 'rights' for bodies described as 'governments-in-exile' cannot exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, I am amazed at your level of research. This means the section have to be generally reformed avoiding the use of assertions of international law or whatsoever like "According to international law..." to qualify government-in-exile. Maybe we have to use Historically..." or "According to historical events..." to qualify whatever we are going to write. Start up something or should I? wɔːr (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Until you have found appropriate sources, there is nothing to write. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Searching the internet and you can as well help in the search. wɔːr (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Until you have found appropriate sources, there is nothing to write. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, I am amazed at your level of research. This means the section have to be generally reformed avoiding the use of assertions of international law or whatsoever like "According to international law..." to qualify government-in-exile. Maybe we have to use Historically..." or "According to historical events..." to qualify whatever we are going to write. Start up something or should I? wɔːr (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Re commercial website, see [1] and [2]. As for your comment about recognition, that is precisely why general 'rights' for bodies described as 'governments-in-exile' cannot exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting to see your points.I wish to know how your arrived that US Law is just commercial website. For the single fact that government-in-exile means government-in-exile, it's not always the case they are recognised by any international law. wɔːr (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Taiwan
[edit]Should ROC be considered not a government in exile, considering they still exercise full control over a territory of their former state? (Taiwan) The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whether the ROC has territorial sovereignty over Taiwan is still debatable. See Retrocession Day#Interpretations and disputes. Matt Smith (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)