Quasi-state explained

A quasi-state (sometimes referred to as a state-like entity[1] or formatively a proto-state[2]) is a political entity that does not represent a fully autonomous sovereign state with its own institutions.[3]

The precise definition of quasi-state in political literature fluctuates depending on the context in which it is used. It has been used by some modern scholars to describe the self-governing British colonies and dependencies that exercised a form of home rule but remained crucial parts of the British Empire and subject firstly to the metropole's administration.[4] [5] Similarly, the Republics of the Soviet Union, which represented administrative units with their own respective national distinctions, have also been described as quasi-states.[3]

In the 21st century usage, the term quasi-state has most often been evoked in reference to militant secessionist groups who claim, and exercise some form of territorial control over, a specific region, but which lack institutional cohesion. Such quasi-states include the Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia during the Bosnian War, the Republic of Serbian Krajina during the Croatian War of Independence,[6] and Azawad during the 2012 Tuareg rebellion.[7] The Islamic State is also widely held to be an example of a modern quasi-state or proto-state.[8] [9]

History

The term "proto-state" has been used in reference to contexts as far back as Ancient Greece, to refer to the phenomenon that the formation of a large and cohesive nation would often be preceded by very small and loose forms of statehood.[10] For instance, historical sociologist Garry Runciman describes the evolution of social organisation in the Greek Dark Ages from statelessness, to what he calls semistates based on patriarchal domination but lacking inherent potential to achieve the requirements for statehood, sometimes transitioning into protostates with governmental roles able to maintain themselves generationally, which could evolve into larger, more centralised entities fulfilling the requirements of statehood by 700 BC in the archaic period.[10] [11]

Most ancient proto-states were the product of tribal societies, consisting of relatively short-lived confederations of communities that united under a single warlord or chieftain endowed with symbolic authority and military rank. These were not considered sovereign states since they rarely achieved any degree of institutional permanence and authority was often exercised over a mobile people rather than measurable territory. Loose confederacies of this nature were the primary means of embracing a common statehood by people in many regions, such as the Central Asian steppes, throughout ancient history.[12]

Proto-states proliferated in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, likely as a result of a trend towards political decentralisation following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the adoption of feudalism.[13] While theoretically owing allegiance to a single monarch under the feudal system, many lesser nobles administered their own fiefs as miniature "states within states" that were independent of each other.[14] This practice was especially notable with regards to large, decentralised political entities such as the Holy Roman Empire, that incorporated many autonomous and semi-autonomous proto-states.[15]

Following the Age of Discovery, the emergence of European colonialism resulted in the formation of colonial proto-states in Asia, Africa, and the Americas.[16] A few colonies were given the unique status of protectorates, which were effectively controlled by the metropole but retained limited ability to administer themselves, self-governing colonies, dominions, and dependencies.[4] These were distinct administrative units that each fulfilled many of the functions of a state without actually exercising full sovereignty or independence.[16] Colonies without a sub-national home rule status, on the other hand, were considered administrative extensions of the colonising power rather than true proto-states.[17] Colonial proto-states later served as the basis for a number of modern nation states, particularly on the Asian and African continents.[16]

During the twentieth century, some proto-states existed as not only distinct administrative units, but their own theoretically self-governing republics joined to each other in a political union such as the socialist federal systems observed in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union.[4] [3] [18] Another form of proto-state that has become especially common since the end of World War II is established through the unconstitutional seizure of territory by an insurgent or militant group that proceeds to assume the role of a de facto government. Although denied recognition and bereft of civil institutions, insurgent proto-states may engage in external trade, provide social services, and even undertake limited diplomatic activity.[19] These proto-states are usually formed by movements drawn from geographically concentrated ethnic or religious minorities, and are thus a common feature of inter-ethnic civil conflicts.[20] This is often due to the inclinations of an internal cultural identity group seeking to reject the legitimacy of a sovereign state's political order, and create its own enclave where it is free to live under its own sphere of laws, social mores, and ordering.[20] Since the 1980s a special kind of insurgent statehood has emerged in form of the "Jihadi proto-state", as the Islamist concept of statehood is extremely flexible. For instance, a Jihadi emirate can be simply understood as a territory or group ruled by an emir; accordingly, it might rule a significant area or just a neighborhood. Regardless of its extent, the assumption of statehood provides Jihadi militants with important internal legitimacy and cementes their self-identification as frontline society opposed to certain enemies.

The accumulation of territory by an insurgent force to form a sub-national geopolitical system and eventually, a proto-state, was a calculated process in China during the Chinese Civil War that set a precedent for many similar attempts throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Proto-states established as a result of civil conflict typically exist in a perpetual state of warfare and their wealth and populations may be limited accordingly.[21] One of the most prominent examples of a wartime proto-state in the twenty-first century is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,[22] [23] [24] that maintained its own administrative bureaucracy and imposed taxes.[25]

Theoretical basis

The definition of a proto-state is not concise, and has been confused by the interchangeable use of the terms state, country, and nation to describe a given territory.[26] The term proto-state is preferred to "proto-nation" in an academic context, however, since some authorities also use nation to denote a social, ethnic, or cultural group capable of forming its own state.[26]

A proto-state does not meet the four essential criteria for statehood as elaborated upon in the declarative theory of statehood of the 1933 Montevideo Convention: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government with its own institutions, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.[26] A proto-state is not necessarily synonymous with a state with limited recognition that otherwise has all the hallmarks of a fully functioning sovereign state, such as Rhodesia or the Republic of China, also known as Taiwan.[26] However, proto-states frequently go unrecognised since a state actor that recognises a proto-state does so in violation of another state actor's external sovereignty.[27] If full diplomatic recognition is extended to a proto-state and embassies exchanged, it is defined as a sovereign state in its own right and may no longer be classified as a proto-state.[27]

Throughout modern history, partially autonomous regions of larger recognised states, especially those based on a historical precedent or ethnic and cultural distinctiveness that places them apart from those who dominate the state as a whole, have been considered proto-states.[4] Home rule generates a sub-national institutional structure that may justifiably be defined as a proto-state.[28] When a rebellion or insurrection seizes control and begins to establish some semblance of administration in regions within national territories under its effective rule, it has also metamorphosed into a proto-state.[29] These wartime proto-states, sometimes known as insurgent states, may eventually transform the structure of a state altogether, or demarcate their own autonomous political spaces.[29] While not a new phenomenon, the modern formation of a proto-states in territory held by a militant non-state entity was popularised by Mao Zedong during the Chinese Civil War, and the national liberation movements worldwide that adopted his military philosophies.[30] The rise of an insurgent proto-state was sometimes also an indirect consequence of a movement adopting Che Guevara's foco theory of guerrilla warfare.[30]

Secessionist proto-states are likeliest to form in preexisting states that lack secure boundaries, a concise and well-defined body of citizens, or a single sovereign power with a monopoly on the legitimate use of military force.[31] They may be created as a result of putsches, insurrections, separatist political campaigns, foreign intervention, sectarian violence, civil war, and even the bloodless dissolution or division of the state.[31]

Proto-states can be important regional players, as their existence affects the options available to state actors, either as potential allies or as impediments to their political or economic policy articulations.[29]

List of proto-states

Constituent proto-states

Current

Proto-state Parent state Achieved statehood SinceSource
1991
Finland1921[32]
1992
Aruba Netherlands1986
Ashanti1957[33]
Pakistan1975
Mali1975
Portugal1816
1990
1960
Papua New Guinea2001
1990
Spain1816
Spain1978
Cayman Islands1962
Myanmar1949
Myanmar2023
Christmas Island Australia1958
1992
Cook Islands New Zealand1888
France1978
Netherlands2010
1991
Sudan1991
Chile1944
Spain1978
1833
Faroe Islands Denmark1948
Belgium1970
French Polynesia France1847
Spain1978
Greenland Denmark1816
Guam United States1816
1204
Indian reservations United States1658
Indigenous territory (Brazil) Brazil1850[34]
1992
1991 [35]
1828
1204
Jewish Autonomous Oblast1934
2001
1992
Myanmar1949
1992
1992
1991
Myanmar1949
Myanmar1949
1992
1996
Portugal1816
1990
France1844
Montserrat United Kingdom1632
Myanmar1949
1994
New Caledonia France1853
United States1899
1995
Canada1999
Puerto Rico United States1816
1998 [36]
Canada1816
1834
1991
Myanmar1949
Netherlands2010
Italy1926
Svalbard Norway1992
1990
Solomon Islands1981
1973
1992
1990
United States1816
Belgium1970
Myanmar2010[37] [38]
1964

Former

Proto-state Parent state Achieved statehood DatesSource
Georgia1921–2004
, 1922–1991
Artsakh Azerbaijan1991-2023
Aruba Netherlands1986
, 1922–1991
South Africa1977–1994[39]
Bosnia-Herzegovina1943–1992
, 1920–1991
South Africa1981–1994
Croatia1943–1991
Carpathian Ruthenia1938–1939
1969–1993
South Africa1972–1989
1940–1941, 1944–1991
1918
Free State of Bottleneck, 1919-1923
Free Republic of Schwarzenberg Soviet occupation zone of Germany1945
1848–1918
1991–1994
South Africa1971–1994
, 1922–1991
Jammu and Kashmir India1921–2019
South Africa1970–1989
South Africa1972–1994
Karelian ASSR, 1923–1940
1940–1956
South Africa1973–1989
1936–1991
1936–1991
South Africa1981–1994
South Africa1981–1994
1940–1941, 1944–1991
Gonâve Island Haiti1920s
South Africa1972–1994
1940–1941, 1944–1990/1991
Macedonia1945–1991
Montenegro, 1945–2006
Moldavian ASSR, 1924–1940
1940–1991
South Africa1973–1989
South Africa1974–1994
1917–1991
Serbia, 1945–2006
Singapore Malaysia1963–1965
1969–1993
Slovenia1945–1991
South West Africa (Namibia) South Africa1915–1990[40]
Southern Sudan Sudan2005–2011[41]
South Africa1976–1994
United Kingdom1820–1971[42]
1929–1991
Turkestan ASSR1918–1924[43]
1925–1991
1917–1918
1918
, 1919–1991[44]
1924–1991
1979–1994

Secessionist, insurgent, and self-proclaimed autonomous proto-states

Current

Proto-state Parent state Achieved statehood Since Source
1992
Mali
Somalia
2006
2009
1996 [45]
2017
Ansar al-Sharia (Yemen) Yemen2011
2020
Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria2012[46]
1975
2020
Houthi movement2004
Islamic State Iraq

Afghanistan
Somalia
Yemen
Nigeria
Libya
Mali
Mozambique
2013 [47]
Kachin Myanmar1961
Khatumo Somalia2012
Kosovo Serbia2008
Mai-Mai2015
National Democratic Alliance Army1989
National Resistance Front of Afghanistan2021
Nduma Defense of Congo-Renovated2015
1974
Oromo Liberation Front1973
Revolutionary Commando Army2016
Morocco1976
1988
Somaliland Somalia1991
1991
2017
Sudan Revolutionary Front2011
Syrian Interim Government2013
Syrian Salvation Government2017
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan Pakistan2002
2020
Transnistria1990
Wa State1989
1971

Former

Proto-state Parent state Achieved statehood Dates Source
2012–2017
Iraq2001–2003
1961–1975
2014–2017
2012–2013
and 2014–2022 [48]
1919–1920 [49]
2012–2013
2013–2015
, 1938–1939
1991–2000
1931–1937
1927–1949
2015–2021 [50]
Croatia1991–1992
Croatia1995–1998
1964–2017 [51]
Fatah al-Islam Lebanon2007
1933–1934
1993–1995
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina1991–1996
1947–1948
1917–1918 [52]
1919–1922 [53]
Islamic Emirate of Kunar1989–1991
1996–2001
Islamic Republic of Imbaba Egypt1989–1992
1982–1989 [54]
1992–1999 [55]
Ukraine2014[56]
1931–1937
1998–2001
(until April 28)
(from April 28)
1992–1997 [57]
1942–1945 [58]
1911–1946
1964–1974
Polish autonomy in the Vilnius Region1988–1991
1969–1976 [59]
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina1991–1995
1929
1991–1995 [60]
Sudetenland1918–1938[61]
"Taylorland" or Greater Liberia 1990–1995/97
Tamil Eelam1983–2009 [62] [63]
1912–1951
, 1941
, 1917–1921
United States1776–1783
, Poland1918–1919
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina1993–1995
Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities1994–2023
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth16th century–1649

See also

Notes and references

Bibliography

Notes and References

  1. 493, 580. Quasi-State. A term sometimes used to describe entities with many, but not all, the criteria of statehood . . . which are nonetheless possessed of a measure of international personality. . . . a term of international relations, and certainly not of international law, it connotes former colonies . . ..
  2. Web site: How the Islamic State Declared War on the World. Foreign Policy. 2016-07-20.
  3. Book: Hahn, Gordon. Russia's Revolution from Above, 1985-2000: Reform, Transition, and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime. 2002. 527. Transaction Publishers. New Brunswick. 978-0765800497.
  4. Book: Griffiths, Ryan. Age of Secession: The International and Domestic Determinants of State Birth. 2016. Cambridge University Press. 978-1107161627. Cambridge. 85–102, 213–242.
  5. Book: Jackson, Robert H. . Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World . 1991 . Cambridge University Press . 978-0-521-44783-6 . 21–22 . 10.1017/cbo9780511559020.
  6. Web site: HIC: VJESNIK, Podlistak, 16 i 17. travnja 2005., VELIKOSRPSKA TVOREVINA NA HRVATSKOM TLU: IZVORNI DOKUMENTI O DJELOVANJU 'REPUBLIKE SRPSKE KRAJINE' (XXIX.) . 31 August 2015 . https://web.archive.org/web/20150924041551/http://www.hic.hr/velika-srbija29.htm . 24 September 2015 . live .
  7. Web site: Independent Azawad: Tuaregs, Jihadists, and an Uncertain Future for Mali. Alvarado. David. Barcelona. Barcelona Center for International Affairs. May 2012. 25 March 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20170325064003/https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/142674/NOTES%2054_ALVARADO_english.pdf. 25 March 2017.
  8. News: The caliphate cracks. The Economist. 0013-0613. 2016-07-20.
  9. Web site: The Islamic State: More than a Terrorist Group?. E-International Relations. 3 April 2015 . 2016-07-20.
  10. Book: The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium. Scheidel. Walter. Morris. Ian. 2009. Oxford University Press. 978-0195371581. Oxford. 5–6, 132.
  11. Runciman. W. G.. July 1982. Origins of States: The Case of Archaic 351–377 Greece. Comparative Studies in Society and History. en. 24. 3. 351–377. 10.1017/S0010417500010045. 145247889 . 0010-4175.
  12. Book: Kim, Hyun Jin. The Huns. 2015. 3–6. Routledge Books. Abingdon. 978-1138841758.
  13. Book: Borza, Eugene. In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon. 1992. 238–240. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 978-0691008806.
  14. Book: Duverger, Maurice. The Study of Politics. 1972. 144–145. Thomas Nelson and Sons, Publishers. Surrey. 978-0690790214. registration.
  15. Book: Beattie, Andrew. The Danube: A Cultural History. 2011. 35. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 978-0199768356.
  16. Book: Abernethy, David. The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415-1980. 2002. 327–328. Yale University Press. New Haven. 978-0300093148.
  17. Book: Morier-Genoud, Eric. Sure Road? Nationalisms in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. 2012. 2. Koninklijke Brill NV. Leiden. 978-9004222618.
  18. Book: Kostovicova, Denisa. Kosovo: The Politics of Identity and Space. limited. 2005. 5–7. Routledge Books. New York. 978-0415348065.
  19. Book: Sellström, Tor. Sweden and National Liberation in Southern Africa: Vol. 2 : Solidarity and assistance, 1970–1994. 2002. 97–99. Nordic Africa Institute. Uppsala. 978-91-7106-448-6.
  20. Book: Christian, Patrick James. A Combat Advisor's Guide to Tribal Engagement: History, Law and War as Operational Elements. 2011. 36–37. Universal Publishers. Boca Raton. 978-1599428161.
  21. News: Estados-embrión. Torreblanca. José Ignacio. José Ignacio Torreblanca. 12 July 2010. El País. es. 18 March 2016.
  22. News: ¿Por qué Estado Islámico le está ganando la partida a los herederos de Bin Laden?. Segurado. Nacho. 16 April 2015. 20 minutos. es. 12 March 2016.
  23. News: Javier Martín: "El Estado Islámico tiene espíritu de gobernar y permanecer". Rengel. Carmen. 5 April 2015. es. 12 March 2016. huffingtonpost.es.
  24. News: Islamic State: The struggle to stay rich - BBC News. en-GB. 17 March 2016. 2016-03-08. Keatinge. Tom.
  25. Book: Martín Rodríguez , Javier . Estado Islámico. Geopolítica del Caos. Los Libros de la Catarata. 2015. 978-84-9097-054-6. 3rd. 15. Madrid, Spain. es. Islamic State: Geopolitics of Chaos. 2016-04-22. https://web.archive.org/web/20171203195640/http://www.catarata.org/libro/mostrar/id/1057. 2017-12-03. dead.
  26. Book: Middleton, Nick. An Atlas of Countries That Don't Exist: A Compendium of Fifty Unrecognized and Largely Unnoticed States. 2015. 14–16. Macmillan Publishers. London. 978-1447295273.
  27. Book: Coggins, Bridget. Power Politics and State Formation in the Twentieth Century: The Dynamics of Recognition. 2014. 35–64, 173. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 978-1107047358.
  28. Book: Augusteijn, Joost. The Irish Revolution, 1913-1923. limited. 2002. 13. Palgrave. Basingstoke. 978-0333982266.
  29. Book: Araoye, Ademola. Okome. Mojubaolu. Contesting the Nigerian State: Civil Society and the Contradictions of Self-Organization. 2013. 35. Palgrave-Macmillan. Basingstoke. 978-1137324528.
  30. Book: McColl, R. W.. Encyclopedia of World Geography, Volume 1. 2005. 397–398, 466. Facts on File, Incorporated. New York. 978-0-8160-5786-3.
  31. Book: Newton. Kenneth. Van Deth. Jan. Foundations of Comparative Politics. 2016. 364–365. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 978-1107582859.
  32. Web site: Euromosaic - Swedish in Finland. www.uoc.edu. 2017-11-11.
  33. Book: Roeder, Philip. Where Nation-States Come From: Institutional Change in the Age of Nationalism. 2007. 281. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 978-0691134673.
  34. Web site: L0601-1850. 2021-07-17. www.planalto.gov.br.
  35. Book: Dyer, Gwynne. Don't Panic: ISIS, Terror and Today's Middle East. 2015. 105–107. Random House Canada. Toronto. 978-0345815866.
  36. Book: Palmer, Andrew. The New Pirates: Modern Global Piracy from Somalia to the South China Sea. 2014. 74. I.B. Tauris, Publishers. London. 978-1848856332.
  37. 29 December 2004, 佤帮双雄, Phoenix TV
  38. Web site: Steinmüller. Hans. 2018. Conscription by Capture in the Wa State of Myanmar: acquaintances, anonymity, patronage, and the rejection of mutuality. live. London School of Economics . https://web.archive.org/web/20230109101438/https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/161929578.pdf . Jan 9, 2023 .
  39. Book: Marx, Anthony. Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of South Africa, the United States, and Brazil. 1998. Cambridge University Press. 978-0521585903. Cambridge. 106.
  40. Book: Recueil des cours: Collected courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Hague Academy of International Law. 1978. Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Publishers. 978-90-286-0759-0. Alphen aan den Rijn. 100–101.
  41. Book: Suzuki, Eisuke. Non-State Actors in International Law. 2015. Hart Publishing. 978-1849465113. Noortmann. Math. Portland. 40. Reinisch. August. Ryngaert. Cedric.
  42. Book: Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates. The Rise of the Global South: Philosophical, Geopolitical and Economic Trends of the 21st Century. 2013. World Scientific Publishing Company. 978-9814397803. Dargin. Justin. Singapore. 155–156.
  43. Book: Reeves, Madeleine. Border Work: Spatial Lives of the State in Rural Central Asia. limited. 2014. Cornell University Press. 978-0801477065. Ithaca. 66.
  44. Book: Ryabchuk, Mykola. Envisioning Eastern Europe: Postcommunist Cultural Studies. 1994. University of Michigan Press. 0-472-10556-6. Kennedy. Michael D.. Ann Arbor. 135. Between Civil Society and the New Etatism: Democracy in the Making and State Building in Ukraine. For Ukraine, even the formal declaration of the Ukrainian SSR, however puppet like, was extremely important. First, it somewhat legitimised the very existence of the Ukrainian state and nation, even if by an “inviolable” union with Russia. Second, it provided an opportunity to create certain state structure, establish state symbols, and even attain an only informal but, as it turned out, crucial membership in the United Nations. Third, the formal existence of the Ukrainian SSR as a distinct ethnic, territorial, and administrative entity with state like features objectively created a legitimate and psychological basis for the eventual formation of a political nation. It has proven much easier to change a nominal “sovereignty” to a real one than to build a state out of several provinces (gubernia) threatened by foreign intervention and civil war, as in 1917–20..
  45. News: New insights on Congo's Islamist rebels . Daniel Fahey . . 19 February 2015 . 16 October 2017.
  46. Book: Williams, Brian Glyn . Counter Jihad: America's Military Experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria . 2016-10-20 . University of Pennsylvania Press . 9780812248678 . en.
  47. Remarks by Anicée van Engeland. 10.1017/S0272503700103052. 2016. Van Engeland. Anicée. Proceedings of the Asil Annual Meeting. 110. 225–228. 233341833.
  48. Book: Socor, Vladimir. Countering Hybrid Threats: Lessons Learned from Ukraine. 2016. IOS Press. 978-1614996507. Iancu. Niculae. Washington, DC. 187–192. Conserved Conflict: Russia's Pattern in Ukraine's East. Russia’s 2014 military intervention breached [Ukraine’s titles to sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders] de facto, but the Minsk armistice formalises that breach at the international level. Under the armistice, a formal restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and control of the external border in Donetsk-Luhansk is no longer a matter of title, right, or international law. Instead, that restoration becomes conditional on enshrining the Donetsk-Luhansk proto-state in Ukraine’s constitution and legitimising the Moscow-installed authorities there through elections. Moreover, the terms of that restoration are negotiable between Kyiv and Donetsk-Luhansk (i.e., Moscow) under the Minsk armistice.. Fortuna. Andrei. Barna. Cristian. Teodor. Mihaela.
  49. Shambarov, V. The State and revolutions (Государство и революции). "Algoritm". Moscow, 2001
  50. News: Central African Republic rebels declare autonomous state in north. 15 December 2015. The Washington Post. 20 December 2015.
  51. Book: Faure. Guy Olivier. Zartman. I. William. Engaging Extremists: Trade-offs, Timing, and Diplomacy. 1997. 5. United States Institute of Peace Press. Washington, D.C.. 978-1601270740.
  52. Book: Roberts, Glenn. Commissar and Mullah: Soviet-Muslim Policy from 1917 to 1924. 2007. 14. Universal Publishers. Boca Raton. 978-1581123494.
  53. Book: Suzman, Mark. Ethnic Nationalism and State Power: The Rise of Irish Nationalism, Afrikaner Nationalism and Zionism. 1999. 144–145. Macmillan Press. Basingstoke. 978-0312220280.
  54. Defence Journal. Ikram ul-Majeed Sehgal, 2006, Volume 9-10 Collected Issues 12(9)-12 (10) page 47.
  55. http://www.keshilliministrave.al/index.php?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=7323&gj=gj2 Statement of Albanian PM Sali Berisha during the recognition of the Republic of Kosovo, stating that this is based on a 1991 Albanian law, which recognised the Republic of Kosova
  56. News: Ukraine Authorities Clear Kharkiv Building, Arrest Scores Of 'Separatists' . April 8, 2014 . Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
  57. Web site: Rashid Dostum: The treacherous general. Independent.co.uk. December 2001.
  58. Book: Laqueur, Walter. Guerrilla Warfare: A Historical and Critical Study. 1997. 218. Transaction Publishers. Piscataway, New Jersey. 978-0765804068.
  59. Book: Domínguez, Jorge. To Make a World Safe for Revolution: Cuba's Foreign Policy. 1989. 127–128. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 978-0674893252.
  60. Book: Glaurdic, Josip. The Hour of Europe: Western Powers and the Breakup of Yugoslavia. 2011. 149. Yale University Press. New Haven. 978-0300166293.
  61. Book: Gilbert . Martin . Gott . Richard . The Appeasers . . . 1967.
  62. Web site: Sri Lanka vs. Tamil Eelam .
  63. Web site: CFA gave de facto recognition to Eelam: LTTE . 23 February 2007 .