DOCSLIB.ORG

Tributary-Protected Principalities Full Article Language: En Indien Anders: Engelse Articletitle: 0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tributary-Protected Principalities Full Article Language: En Indien Anders: Engelse Articletitle: 0 _full_alt_author_running_head (neem stramien B2 voor dit chapter en nul 0 in hierna): 0 _full_articletitle_deel (kopregel rechts, vul hierna in): Tributary-Protected Principalities _full_article_language: en indien anders: engelse articletitle: 0 344 Chapter 14 Chapter 14 Tributary-Protected Principalities The juridical nature of Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania’s relations to the Ottoman center has been at the crux of Romanian historiography’s engage- ment with the history of the empire. Within this debate, some scholars have claimed that there existed only a de facto relationship, lacking any legal under- pinnings and marred by abuses.1 This assertion goes against a broad spec- trum of juridical, political and administrative sources that prove the existence of a de jure status that the principalities had within the pax ottomanica system. Romanian contributions to this topic have been characterized by a perva- sive obsession with proving that the principalities enjoyed a superior status in comparison to other Balkan countries. To achieve this goal, scholars coined several concepts – sometimes ambiguous and improper for the context – to describe the principalities’ status, such as “submitted states,” “dependent states,” “vassal states,” “autonomous states,” “effective dependence,” “Ottoman domination,” or “autonomy.” The concepts of “vassalage” and “autonomy” deserve a special treatment. A majority of historians and jurists defined the relations between tributary princes and sultans from a European juridical and political point of view, con- sidering them as a vassal–suzerain relationship. In this respect, it is necessary to emphasize two caveats. Firstly, the notions of ‘vassal’ and ‘suzerain’ came to define the relationship between the Porte and the principalities at a late stage, particularly in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European documents, nar- ratives and translations of Ottoman sources.2 In fact, it was only in the nine- teenth century that Western scholars introduced the syntagma of “vassal 1 For instance L. P. Marcu, “Idei despre stat si drept în opera lui Dimitrie Cantemir,” Studii și cercetări juridice (Bucharest), 3 (1973), 497. 2 In Western Europe this medieval notion would not be employed in nineteenth-century dip- lomatic vocabulary, except to define the relations between the Ottoman Empire and the Principality of Bulgaria (1878–1909) and between Great Britain and South Africa. See J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace, 6th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963, 133–136. Numerous manuscripts from the Archives of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs discuss the “vassal” provinces and countries of the Ottoman Empire: Mémoires et documents divers sur les provinces et sur les pays vassaux de l’Empire ot- toman: originaux, copies et imprimés des XVIIIe et XIXe siècles sur la période de 1700 à 1839, AMAE, Mémoires et documents, vol. 13; Mémoires et documents sur la Moldavie et la Valachie: minutes, originaux, copies et imprimés du XIXe siècles sur la période de 1825 à 1855, AMAE, Mémoires et documents, vol. 48. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004411104_015 _full_alt_author_running_head (neem stramien B2 voor dit chapter en nul 0 in hierna): 0 _full_articletitle_deel (kopregel rechts, vul hierna in): Tributary-Protected Principalities _full_article_language: en indien anders: engelse articletitle: 0 Tributary-Protected Principalities 345 states” to describe the political status of the Danubian principalities. This no- tion was complementary to the notion of suzerainty, defining the relation of dependency between a stronger state and a weaker one.3 According to Ar- thur de Claparède, the secretary of the Swiss embassy in Vienna and a theoreti- cian of diplomatic law, the “nominal vassalage status” applied to the Danubian Principalities was defined by the fact that the state was subject but de facto sovereign, possessing the right to conclude peace and wage war, to negotiate and be represented in foreign countries by legation.4 This notion was subse- quently deployed retroactively to describe power relations in past centuries. In their turn, Romanian historians adopted the terms of “vassalage” and “suzer- ainty” without regard to chronology or the uniformity of the content.5 How- ever, such concepts are hardly applicable to the Ottoman context. Prior to the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, no notions equivalent to the Western concept of “suzerainty” can be found in Ottoman documents. It was only after that date that this term was abundantly used in the translation of official Ottoman docu- ments to European languages.6 Within the Ottoman Empire, numerous tributary and non-tributary regions enjoyed various degrees of self-government, depending on their historical, 3 In this respect, Henry Wheaton spoke of “the Principalities of Moldavia, Wallachia and Serbia, under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Porte and the protectorate of Russia.” (H. Wheaton, Commentaire sur les éléments du droit international et sur l’histoire des progrès du droit des gens, vol. 3, Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1873, 36). 4 Arthur de Claparède, Essai sur le droit de représentation diplomatique d’après le droit interna- tional moderne, Thèse de doctorat, Geneva: Universițé de Genève, 1875, 113. 5 For instance, some of them came to “Westernize” the political status of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia by adopting the notion of vassalage paradoxically for the period after 1538, a stage in which actually the usual Ottoman habits had begun to massively penetrate the Danubian territories. Moreover, the stages of relationship between the Porte and the two tributary Principalities being defined firstly according to the Ottoman criteria and terms (for instance, tributaries) and then according to the medieval Western ones, i.e. vassals, an ambigu- ous image was created. See Gh. Zagoriț, “Stabilirea suzeranității turcești în Moldova. Cu argu- mente că prima capitulație atribuită lui Bogdan III a fost facută de Ștefan cel Mare la 1497,” CL, XLVIII/7–8 (1914), 710–728; N. A. Constantinescu, Începuturile și stabilirea suzeranității turcești în Moldova, Bucharest: Institutul de Arte Grafice „Flacăra,” 1914. 6 For instance, in the French translation of the ferman of 24 October 1866 that acknowledged Prince Carol of Hohenzollern and imposed a duty to observe the Ottoman suzerainty over the United Principalities, as the part of the Ottoman Empire, the concept of “suzeraineté” is ubiq- uitous: A respecter dans leur intégrité mes droits de suzeraineté sur les Principautés-Unies qui font partie intégrante de mon Empire, dans les limites fixées par les stipulations des anciennes Conventions et par le Traité de Paris de 1856 (Noradounghian, Actes, III, 258). This ferman was granted after the Grand Vizier Ali paşa’s note of 19 October 1866, addressed to Prince Carol, which included the conditions of his recognition as the hereditary prince of the United Principalities, and after Prince Carol’s affirmative answer of 10 October 1866. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Biopolitics and Geopolitics of Border Enforcement in Melilla
    The biopolitics and geopolitics of border enforcement in Melilla By: Corey Johnson and Reece Johnson Johnson, C., & Jones, R. (2018). The biopolitics and geopolitics of border enforcement in Melilla. Territory, Politics, Governance 6(1), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1236746 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Territory, Politics, Governance on 06 October 2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/21622671.2016.1236746. ***© 2016 Regional Studies Association. Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from Taylor & Francis. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document. *** Abstract: This article uses the multiple and contradictory realities of Melilla, a pene-enclave and -exclave of Spain in North Africa, to draw out the contemporary practice of Spanish, European Union, and Moroccan immigration enforcement policies. The city is many things at once: a piece of Europe in North Africa and a symbol of Spain’s colonial history; an example of the contemporary narrative of a cosmopolitan and multicultural Europe; a place where extraterritorial and intraterritorial dynamics demonstrate territory’s continuing allure despite the security challenges and the lack of economic or strategic value; a metaphorical island of contrasting geopolitical and biopolitical practices; and a place of regional flows and cross-border cooperation between Spain, the EU, and Morocco. It is a border where the immunitary logic of sovereign territorial spaces is exposed through the biopolitical practices of the state to ‘protect’ the community from outsiders.
    [Show full text]
  • Condominiums and Shared Sovereignty | 1
    Condominiums and Shared Sovereignty | 1 Condominiums And Shared Sovereignty Abstract As the United Kingdom (UK) voted to leave the European Union (EU), the future of Gibraltar, appears to be in peril. Like Northern Ireland, Gibraltar borders with EU territory and strongly relies on its ties with Spain for its economic stability, transports and energy supplies. Although the Gibraltarian government is struggling to preserve both its autonomy with British sovereignty and accession to the European Union, the Spanish government states that only a form of joint- sovereignty would save Gibraltar from the same destiny as the rest of UK in case of complete withdrawal from the EU, without any accession to the European Economic Area (Hard Brexit). The purpose of this paper is to present the concept of Condominium as a federal political system based on joint-sovereignty and, by presenting the existing case of Condominiums (i.e. Andorra). The paper will assess if there are margins for applying a Condominium solution to Gibraltar. Condominiums and Shared Sovereignty | 2 Condominium in History and Political Theory The Latin word condominium comes from the union of the Latin prefix con (from cum, with) and the word dominium (rule). Watts (2008: 11) mentioned condominiums among one of the forms of federal political systems. As the word suggests, it is a form of shared sovereignty involving two or more external parts exercising a joint form of sovereignty over the same area, sometimes in the form of direct control, and sometimes while conceding or maintaining forms of self-government on the subject area, occasionally in a relationship of suzerainty (Shepheard, 1899).
    [Show full text]
  • CONCEPT of STATEHOOD in UNITED NATIONS PRACTICE * ROSALYN COHEN T
    1961] THE CONCEPT OF STATEHOOD IN UNITED NATIONS PRACTICE * ROSALYN COHEN t The topic of "statehood under international law" has long been a favorite with jurists. The problem of what constitutes a "state" has been extensively examined and discussed, but all too often in absolutist terms confined to drawing up lists of criteria which must be met before an entity may be deemed a "state." The very rigidity of this approach implies that the term "state" has a fixed meaning which provides an unambiguous yardstick for measuring without serious fear of error, the existence of international personality. The framework of examination being thus constricted, traditional inquiry has endeavored to meet some of its inadequacies by ancillary discussions on the possi- bility of a "dependent state" in international law, of the desirability of universality in certain organizations set up by the international com- munity, and of the rights of peoples to national self-determination. It would appear, however, that these questions, far from being ancillary, are integral to any discussion of "statehood." Even the language of the law-or perhaps especially the language of the law-contains ambiguities which are inherent in any language system, and the diffi- culties presented by this fact can only be resolved by an analysis which takes full cognizance of the contextual background. Thus, when ex- amining what is meant by the word "state," an appraisal of the com- munity interests which will be affected by the decision to interpret it in one way rather than in another is necessary. Discussions, for example, of whether a "dependent state" can exist under international law become meaningless unless there is first an examination of whether the community of nations would find it appropriate, in the light of its long range objectives, to afford the rights which follow from "state- hood" to entities fettered by restrictions which impair their independ- ence.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of British Colonial Development Policy
    No. E 68-A RESTRICTED r:;: ONE '\f ..- tf\rhi.§..l report is restricted to use within the Bank Public Disclosure Authorized INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT Public Disclosure Authorized SURVEY OF BRITISH COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY November 9. 1949 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Economic Department Prepared by: B. King TABLE OF CONTE.t-J'TS Page No. I. PREFACE (and Map) • • • • • • • • • t • • .. .. i II. SPi!IMARY • • •••• .. .. ., . , . · .. iv , . III. THE COLONIES UP TO 1940' •• .. .. .. .. • • • 1 TJi.BLES I '& II • .'. .. • • • • • • • • 8 . IV. THE COLONIES SINCE, 1940 ••• • • • • • • • • 10 TABlES III to VI • • • 0 • • • • • • • • 29 APPElIIDIX - THE CURRENCY SYSTEMS OF' THE cOtOlUAL EI'!PlRE .....,,,.,. 34 (i) I. PREFACE The British Colonial :empire is a sO!!lm-:hat loose expression embracing some forty dependencies of the United Kingdom. For the purposes of this paper the term vdll be used to cover all dependencies administered through the Colonial Office on December 31" 1948 cmd" in addition, the three :30uth African High Cowmission territories, which are under the control of the Commonwealth Relations Office. This definition is adopted" since its scope is the same as that of the various Acts of Parliament passed since lSll.~O to Dovcloptx;nt promote colomal development, including the Overseas Resourceshct y::rLcl1 established the Colonial Development Corporation. A full list of the~e ter:-itories 17ill be found in the list following. It [;hould be noted th'lt in conform..i.ty vri th the provisions of the recent Acts vIhieh apply only to flcolonies not possessing responsible govermnent,uYthe definition given above excludes the self-governing colony of Southern :Ehodesia, v(nose rela- tions with the United Kinr;dom are conducted through the Co:nmonlrealth Relations Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Coding Units Version 3 (December 2014)
    Country Coding Units Version 3 (December 2014) Principal Investigators Research Assistant Michael Coppedge – U. of Notre Dame Vlad Ciobanu – U. of Gothenburg John Gerring – Boston University Staffan I. Lindberg –U. of Gothenburg Jan Teorell – Lund University Suggested citation: Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, Vlad Ciobanu. 2014. “Varieties of Democracy: Country Coding Units v3.” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. 1 This document lists (a) every country in the eventual V-Dem database, (b) the years for which we have collect data or plan to collect data (in parentheses next to the entry); (c) the polities that comprise each country’s 20th century history (even if falling outside the time-period that we wish to code); and (d) the borders of each country (wherever this might be unclear). Many dates are approximate due to the inconclusive nature of a country’s history. Note that changes in sovereignty often occur by stages, and marking these stages with specific dates can be challenging. General sources for compiling this document include Wikipedia and Statesman.org. Additional sources, along with notes pertaining to specific countries, empires, and federations are contained in a separate document: “Countries, Empires, Elections (misc notes)” “Country” A V-Dem “country” is a political unit enjoying at least some degree of functional and/or formal sovereignty. This means that fully sovereign nation-states as well as colonies and protectorates and semi-autonomous administrative districts may qualify as countries. A territory must claim sovereignty at some point in its history in order to qualify. Thus, Somaliland qualifies but not Puntland.
    [Show full text]
  • J. Van Der Kroef on the Sovereignty of Indonesian States: a Rejoinder
    J. van der Kroef On the sovereignty of Indonesian states: a rejoinder. (Zie nr. 1562) In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 117 (1961), no: 2, Leiden, 238-266 This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 01:24:14AM via free access ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF INDONESIAN STATES: A REJOINDER s always I have read Professor Resink's recent essay on the Indonesian states 1 with great interest. Unfortunately, per- hapAs even more in this latest essay than in most of his other publi- cations, the narrowly focussed jurist, painstakingly gathering precedent, gets in the way of the more widely oriented historian, alert to the total pattern of historie forces and careful to consider the context of each utterance and action. The essay under discussion also contains (pp. 331—332, note 56) a reply to an earlier criticism,2 which I had already occasion to make of Resink's work, and so I may perhaps be permitted to cast this rejoinder in terms of a more comprehensive objection to the purport of Resink's latest paper. There are three points in Professor Resink's essay which, I think, require consideration and to which this rejoinder is addressed. First there is an interpretation of certain statements made by Margadant, Colijn, Verbeek, and others, which leads to the assertion (p. 332, note 56) that these statements question the principle of Dutch sover- eignty in the Indonesian archipelago, specifically in relation to the Indonesian states. Secondly, there is the analysis of how (what Resink calls) the "myth" of a three centuries long présence Nêerlandaise in Indonesia came into being, a process reflected in the work of Stapel and — implicit in Resink's view — further aided and abetted by that historian and others who in the 1930's, under the threat of international developments and of "communistic and nationalistic movements" (p.
    [Show full text]
  • The Partition of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands W
    Island Studies Journal , Vol. 7, No.1, 2012, pp. 135-146 REVIEW ESSAY The Partition of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands W. David McIntyre Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies Christchurch, New Zealand [email protected] ABSTRACT : This paper reviews the separation of the Ellice Islands from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony, in the central Pacific, in 1975: one of the few agreed boundary changes that were made during decolonization. Under the name Tuvalu, the Ellice Group became the world’s fourth smallest state and gained independence in 1978. The Gilbert Islands, (including the Phoenix and Line Islands), became the Republic of Kiribati in 1979. A survey of the tortuous creation of the colony is followed by an analysis of the geographic, ethnic, language, religious, economic, and administrative differences between the groups. When, belatedly, the British began creating representative institutions, the largely Polynesian, Protestant, Ellice people realized they were doomed to permanent minority status while combined with the Micronesian, half-Catholic, Gilbertese. To protect their identity they demanded separation, and the British accepted this after a UN-observed referendum. Keywords: Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Gilbert and Ellis islands; independence; Kiribati; Tuvalu © 2012 Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada Context The age of imperialism saw most of the world divided up by colonial powers that drew arbitrary lines on maps to designate their properties. The age of decolonization involved the assumption of sovereign independence by these, often artificial, creations. Tuvalu, in the central Pacific, lying roughly half-way between Australia and Hawaii, is a rare exception.
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereignty, Statehood, Self-Determination, and the Issue of Taiwan Jianming Shen
    American University International Law Review Volume 15 | Issue 5 Article 4 2000 Sovereignty, Statehood, Self-Determination, and the Issue of Taiwan Jianming Shen Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Shen, Jianming. "Sovereignty, Statehood, Self-Determination, and the Issue of Taiwan." American University International Law Review 15, no. 5 (2000): 1101-1161, This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SOVEREIGNTY, STATEHOOD, SELF- DETERMINATION, AND THE ISSUE OF TAIWAN JIANMING SHEN* INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1102 I. TAIWAN'S ATTRIBUTES AND THE NATURE OF THE TAIW AN ISSUE .................................... ..... 1104 A. HISTORICAL BASIS FOR CHINA'S SOVEREIGNTY OVER T A VAN ................................................ 1105 B. LEGAL BASES FOR CHINA'S SOVEREIGNTY OVER TAIWAN 1109 1. Historic Title as a Legal Basis ....................... 1109 2. Invalidity of the Shimonoseki Treat ................. 1110 3. Legal Effects of the Cairo/Potsdam Declarations..... 1112 4. The 1951 San Francesco Peace Treat ' ................ 1114 5. The 1952 Peace Treat ,............................... 1116 C. INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF CHINA'S SOVEREIGNTY OVER TAIW AN ........................................... 1117 1. PRC's Continuity of the ROC and Its Legal Effects ... 1117 2. Recognition by 160+ States .......................... 1121 3. Recognition by hternationalOrganizations .......... 1122 4. Significance of the General Recognition Accorded to the P R C .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • US Responses to Self-Determination Movements
    U.S. RESPONSES TO SELF-DETERMINATION MOVEMENTS Strategies for Nonviolent Outcomes and Alternatives to Secession Report from a Roundtable Held in Conjunction with the Policy Planning Staff of the U.S. Department of State Patricia Carley UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE CONTENTS Key Points v Preface viii 1 Introduction 1 2 Self-Determination: Four Case Studies 3 3 Self-Determination, Human Rights, and Good Governance 14 4 A Case for Secession 17 5 Self-Determination at the United Nations 21 6 Nonviolent Alternatives to Secession: U.S. Policy Options 23 7 Conclusion 28 About the Author 29 About the Institute 30 v refugees from Iraq into Turkey heightened world awareness of the Kurdish issue in general and highlighted Kurdish distinctiveness. The forma- tion in the 1970s in Turkey of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, a radical and violent Marxist-Leninist organization, also intensified the issue; the PKK’s success in rallying the Kurds’ sense of identity cannot be denied. Though the KEY POINTS PKK has retreated from its original demand for in- dependence, the Turks fear that any concession to their Kurdish population will inevitably lead to an end to the Turkish state. - Although the Kashmir issue involves both India’s domestic politics and its relations with neighbor- ing Pakistan, the immediate problem is the insur- rection in Kashmir itself. Kashmir’s inclusion in the state of India carried with it provisions for considerable autonomy, but the Indian govern- ment over the decades has undermined that au- tonomy, a process eventually resulting in - Though the right to self-determination is included anti-Indian violence in Kashmir in the late 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • Small States & Territories, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019, Pp. 183-194 Oecusse And
    Small States & Territories, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019, pp. 183-194 Oecusse and the Sultanate of Occussi-Ambeno: Pranksterism, misrepresentation and micronationality Philip Hayward School of Communications University of Technology Sydney Australia [email protected] Abstract: Occussi-Ambeno, a fictional sultanate initially conceived by Aotearoan/New Zealander anarchist artist Bruce Grenville in 1968 and represented and developed by him and others over the last fifty years, is notable as both an early example of a virtual micronation (i.e. a type that does not attempt to enact itself within the physical territory it claims) and as an entity affixed to an entire pre-existent territory (in the case of the Sultanate of Occussi- Ambeno, that of Oecusse on the north-west coast of the island of Timor). The latter aspect is pertinent in that however imaginary the micronation is, its association with a region of a small state raises questions concerning the ethics of (mis)representation. This is particularly pertinent in the case of Oecusse, which was occupied by Indonesian forces in 1975 and had its distinct identity subsumed within the Indonesian state until Timor-Leste (and Oecusse as its exclave) successfully gained independence in 2002. Discussions in the article compare the anarcho- pranksterist impulse behind the creation of the Sultanate of Occussi-Ambeno and its manifestation in visual media – primarily through the design and production of ‘artistamps’ (faux postage stamps) – to related economic and socio-political contexts. Keywords: artistamps, Indonesia, micronation, misrepresentation, Occussi-Ambeno, Oecusse, Portugal, Timor, Timor Leste © 2019 – Islands and Small States Institute, University of Malta, Malta.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Coding Units
    INSTITUTE Country Coding Units v11.1 - March 2021 Copyright © University of Gothenburg, V-Dem Institute All rights reserved Suggested citation: Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, and Lisa Gastaldi. 2021. ”V-Dem Country Coding Units v11.1” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. Funders: We are very grateful for our funders’ support over the years, which has made this ven- ture possible. To learn more about our funders, please visit: https://www.v-dem.net/en/about/ funders/ For questions: [email protected] 1 Contents Suggested citation: . .1 1 Notes 7 1.1 ”Country” . .7 2 Africa 9 2.1 Central Africa . .9 2.1.1 Cameroon (108) . .9 2.1.2 Central African Republic (71) . .9 2.1.3 Chad (109) . .9 2.1.4 Democratic Republic of the Congo (111) . .9 2.1.5 Equatorial Guinea (160) . .9 2.1.6 Gabon (116) . .9 2.1.7 Republic of the Congo (112) . 10 2.1.8 Sao Tome and Principe (196) . 10 2.2 East/Horn of Africa . 10 2.2.1 Burundi (69) . 10 2.2.2 Comoros (153) . 10 2.2.3 Djibouti (113) . 10 2.2.4 Eritrea (115) . 10 2.2.5 Ethiopia (38) . 10 2.2.6 Kenya (40) . 11 2.2.7 Malawi (87) . 11 2.2.8 Mauritius (180) . 11 2.2.9 Rwanda (129) . 11 2.2.10 Seychelles (199) . 11 2.2.11 Somalia (130) . 11 2.2.12 Somaliland (139) . 11 2.2.13 South Sudan (32) . 11 2.2.14 Sudan (33) .
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Territories of the World for Use in International Merchandise Trade Statistics
    ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/30/Rev.3 Department of Economic and Social Affairs ● Statistics Division Studies in Methods Series M, No. 30, Rev. 3 ____________________________________________________________ Statistical Territories of the World for use in International Merchandise Trade Statistics ____________________________________________________________ United Nations ● New York, 2000 NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Copyright © United Nations 2000 All rights reserved CONTENTS Paragraphs Page Introduction 1-14 1 List of questions 4 Explanation of concepts used in or related to the questionnaire 8-14 5 Statistical territories of the world 8 ANNEX Agencies and persons responsible for the completion of the statistical territories questionnaire 76 iii INTRODUCTION 1. The United Nations Statistical Commission at its twenty-ninth session (11-14 February 1997) decided that a revision of Customs Areas of the World should be one of the priorities in methodological work in the area of international trade statistics. 1 Following this decision of the Commission, the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) conducted a survey of countries to collect information regarding their statistical territories. 2. In cooperation with members of the Task Force on International Trade Statistics, 2 UNSD developed a special questionnaire which was sent to countries on 11 May 1999. By May 2000, 128 countries had responded. 3. This publication contains a list of the questions which were contained in the questionnaire; an explanation of concepts used or related to the questions; country responses 3 organized in alphabetical order; and an annex listing agencies and persons responsible for completion of the questionnaire.
    [Show full text]