Classification

[F.O'Driscoll]

Hello. Sorry if my English is not good. My Esperanto is worse.
I would like to suggest that all people interested here by micronations
or microstates go to an agreement on a unique classification.
It seems to me that some misunderstanding could be avoided.
United Nations criteria is of no help : to say that a micronation is a
country with less of I.500.000 inhabitants is not a way of dealing
with the problem. The Micronations Page classification is interesting
but somehow too subjective in my opinion. Other classifications are not
clear on the recognition issue. May I explain my point of view : According to
international law a country has a legitimate existence (i.e. validity) if 4
criterias are observed : (1) a minimum territory on which lives a (2) minimum
population that accepts (3) a minimum Government having (4) minimum effective
power. The fact that the entity that complies with the above-mentioned
criterias is recognized or not is an other question. Recognition is not based
on law but on politics. Taiwan is not recognized but who can say that Taiwan
does not exist as a valid (and legal) entity ? Compagnies registrated in Taiwan
can go into Courts even if Taiwan is supposed not to exist. Other case.
Hutt River. This Principality has a territory larger than many UN recognized
states. Secession was lawfull according to Commonwealth law and Australia does
not dispute the fact any more. But Hutt River is not yet recognized.
Can we say that Hutt River is a microstate that would fall in the same
category as Baldonia ? Difficult to accept ! Some classification must be made.
My proposal is the following:

1. Officially independant and recognized microstates.
(Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, etc.)

2. Officially unrecognized microstates.

2.1. Independant unrecognized microstates with some undisputed legal
basis and claiming for recognition (Hutt River, Sealand, etc.)

2. 2. Unrecognized microstates with disputed legal basis but still
claiming for recognition (Seborga, etc.).

3. Micronations.

3.1. Real Micronations attempting to come up to category 2.2. but
without sufficient land or population or autonomy.

3.2. Virtual Micronations existing only or mainly on an associative
way through computer or other artificial links.

(To be honest I am not happy with this distinction between microstates
an micronations. Ex. Porto Claro claims to be a micronation but as a
kingdom ( virtual or not) it is also a microstate. Now, I agree on the
fact that it is an easy way to be understood)

The fact that a microstate or micronation exists or does not exist any
more is an other issue. Sealand has maybe vanished by now (?) but it is or
was a microstate.

Governments in exile are also an other issue.
Araucania was supposed to have a very large territory and at the time nobody
would have said it was a micronation or a microstate.
I would suggest to classify entities as Araucania in a special category :

4. Governments or undisputed Governments or sovereign hereditary families
in exile or not ruling.

4.1. Recognized or undisputed Governments or sovereign hereditary families
in exile or not ruling. ( ex. Royal Family of France)

4.2. Unrecognized or disputed .... (ex Prince of Araucania, Emperor Norton, etc).

Thanks for reading. Fabrice O道riscoll