Quasi-state

Not to be confused with protostates or deep state.

Map of the British Empire under Queen Victoria at the end of the nineteenth century. "Dominions" refers to all territories belonging to the Crown.

Maximum extent of the territory of the Islamic State (frequently described as a proto-state) in Iraq and Syria, on 21 May 2015. ^[1]

A quasi-state (some times referred to as state-like entity ^[2] or formatively a proto-state ^{[3] [2]} ) is a political entity that does not represent a fully autonomous sovereign state with its own institutions. ^[4]

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. ^{[5] [6]} Similarly, the Republics of the Soviet Union, which represented administrative units with their own respective national distinctions, have also been described as quasi-states. ^[4]

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. ^{[5] [ failed verification – see discussion ]} Such quasi-states include the Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia during the Bosnian War, ^[5] the Republic of Serbian Krajina during the Croatian War of Independence, ^[7] and Azawad during the 2012 Tuareg rebellion. ^[8] The Islamic State is also widely held to be an example of a modern quasi-state or proto-state. ^{[9] [2] [10] [11]}

History

Tuareg rebels in the short-lived proto-state of Azawad.

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. ^[12] 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. ^{[12] [13]}

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. ^[12] 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. ^[12] 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. ^[14]

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. ^[15] 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. ^[16] 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. ^[17]

Following the Age of Discovery, the emergence of European colonialism resulted in the formation of colonial proto-states in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. ^[18] 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. ^[5] These were distinct administrative units that each fulfilled many of the functions of a state without actually exercising full sovereignty or independence. ^[18] 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. ^[19] Colonial proto-states later served as the basis for a number of modern nation states, particularly on the Asian and African continents. ^[18]

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. ^{[5] [4] [20]}

Territory controlled by the Anti-Fascist Council of Yugoslavia, which established its own proto-state in 1942

Another form of proto-state that has become especially common since the end of World War II ^{[ citation needed ]} 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. ^[9] 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. ^[21] 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. ^[22] 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. ^[22] 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. ^[9]

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. ^[23] 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. ^[24] 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, ^{[25] [26] [27]} that maintained its own administrative bureaucracy and imposed taxes. ^[28]

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. ^[29] 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. ^[29]

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. ^[29] 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. ^[29] 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. ^[30] 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. ^[30]

Territory of Croatia controlled by the Republic of Serbian Krajina proto-state 1991–1995.

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. ^[5] Home rule generates a sub-national institutional structure that may justifiably be defined as a proto-state. ^[31] 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. ^[32] 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. ^[32] 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. ^[23] 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. ^[23]

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. ^[33] 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. ^[33]

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. ^[32]

List of proto-states

Constituent proto-states

Current

Proto-state	Parent state	Achieved statehood	Since	Source
Adygea	Russia	Russian Federation	1991	[5]
Åland	Finland	No	1921[ citation needed ]	[5] [34] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Altai Republic	Russia	Russian Federation	1992	[5]
Aruba	Netherlands	No	1986[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Ashanti	Ghana	No	1957[ citation needed ]	[35] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Azad Kashmir	Pakistan	No	1975[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Azores	Portugal	No	1816[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Bashkortostan	Russia	Russian Federation	1990	[5]
British Virgin Islands	United Kingdom	No	1960	[5]
Bougainville	Papua New Guinea	De facto	2001	[5]
Buryatia	Russia	Russian Federation	1990	[5]
Canary Islands	Spain	No	1816[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Catalonia	Spain	No	1978	[5]
Cayman Islands	United Kingdom	No	1962	[5]
Chin State	Myanmar	No	1949[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Chinland	Myanmar	No	2023[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Christmas Island	Australia	No	1958[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Chuvashia	Russia	Russian Federation	1992	[5]
Cook Islands	New Zealand	De jure	1888	[5]
Corsica	France	No	1978[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Curaçao	Netherlands	No	2010[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Dagestan	Russia	Russian Federation	1991	[5]
Easter Island	Chile	No	1944[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Euskadi	Spain	No	1978	[5]
Falkland Islands	United Kingdom	No	1833[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Faroe Islands	Denmark	No	1948	[5]
Flanders	Belgium	No	1970[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
French Polynesia	France	No	1847[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Galicia	Spain	No	1978	[5]
Greenland	Denmark	No	1816	[5]
Guam	United States	No	1816	[5]
Guernsey	United Kingdom	No	1204[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Indian reservations	United States	De jure	1658	[5]
Indigenous territory (Brazil)	Brazil	No	1850 [36]	[ citation needed ]
Ingushetia	Russia	Russian Federation	1992	[5]
Iraqi Kurdistan	Iraq	No	1991	[37]
Isle of Man	United Kingdom	De jure	1828	[5]
Jersey	United Kingdom	De jure	1204	[5]
Jewish Autonomous Oblast	Russia	Russian Federation	1934	[ citation needed ]
Jubaland	Somalia	No	2001	[note 1]
Kabardino-Balkaria	Russia	Russian Federation	1992	[5]
Kachin State	Myanmar	No	1949	[5]
Kalmykia	Russia	Russian Federation	1992	[5]
Karachay-Cherkessia	Russia	Russian Federation	1992	[5]
Karelia	Russia	Russian Federation	1991	[5]
Kayah State	Myanmar	No	1949	[5]
Kayin State	Myanmar	No	1949	[5]
Khakassia	Russia	Russian Federation	1992	[5]
Komi Republic	Russia	Russian Federation	1996	[5]
Madeira	Portugal	No	1816[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Mari El	Russia	Russian Federation	1990	[5]
Marquesas Islands	France	No	1844[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Montserrat	United Kingdom	No	1632[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Mon State	Myanmar	No	1949	[5]
Mordovia	Russia	Russian Federation	1994	[5]
New Caledonia	France	No	1853[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Northern Marianas	United States	No	1899	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
North Ossetia-Alania	Russia	Russian Federation	1995	[5]
Nunavut	Canada	No	1999	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Puerto Rico	United States	No	1816	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Puntland	Somalia	No	1998	[40]
Quebec	Canada	No	1816	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Saint Helena	United Kingdom	No	1834	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Sakha Republic	Russia	Russian Federation	1991	[5]
Shan State	Myanmar	No	1949	[5]
Sint Maarten	Netherlands	No	2010	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
South Tyrol	Italy	No	1926	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Svalbard	Norway	No	1992[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Tatarstan	Russia	Russian Federation	1990	[5]
Temotu	Solomon Islands	No	1981[ citation needed ]	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Turks and Caicos	United Kingdom	No	1973	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Tuva	Russia	Russian Federation	1992	[5]
Udmurtia	Russia	Russian Federation	1990	[5]
United States Virgin Islands	United States	No	1816	[5] [ additional citation(s) needed ]
Wallonia	Belgium	No	1970	[5]
Wa State	Myanmar	De facto	2010	[41] [42]
Zanzibar	Tanzania	No	1964	[5]

Former

Proto-state	Parent state	Achieved statehood	Dates	Source
Adjara	Georgia	No	1921–2004	[5]
Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic	Transcaucasian SFSR,   Soviet Union	Yes	1922–1991
Artsakh	Azerbaijan	De facto	1991-2023
Aruba	Netherlands	No	1986–1995[ clarify ]	[5]
Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic	Transcaucasian SFSR,   Soviet Union	Yes	1922–1991
Bophuthatswana	South Africa	De jure	1977–1994	[43]
Bosnia-Herzegovina	Yugoslavia	Yes	1943–1992	[20]
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic	Russian SFSR,   Soviet Union	Yes	1920–1991
Ciskei	South Africa	De jure	1981–1994	[43]
Croatia	Yugoslavia	Yes	1943–1991	[20]
Carpathian Ruthenia	Czechoslovakia	De facto	1938–1939
Czech Socialist Republic	Czechoslovakia	Yes	1969–1993	[33]
East Caprivi	South Africa	No	1972–1989	[43]
Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic	Soviet Union	Yes	1940–1941, 1944–1991
Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic	Finland	No	1918
Free State of Bottleneck	Prussia,   Weimar Republic	No	1919-1923
Free Republic of Schwarzenberg	Soviet occupation zone of Germany	De facto	1945
Galician Ruthenians	Austria-Hungary	De facto	1848–1918
Gagauzia	Moldova	No	1991–1994	[5]
Gazankulu	South Africa	No	1971–1994	[43]
Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic	Transcaucasian SFSR,   Soviet Union	Yes	1922–1991
Jammu and Kashmir	India	No	1921–2019	[5]
Hereroland	South Africa	No	1970–1989	[43]
KaNgwane	South Africa	No	1972–1994	[43]
Karelian ASSR	Russian SFSR,   Soviet Union	union republic	1923–1940
Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic	Soviet Union	No	1940–1956
Kavangoland	South Africa	No	1973–1989	[43]
Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic	Soviet Union	Yes	1936–1991
Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic	Soviet Union	Yes	1936–1991
KwaNdebele	South Africa	No	1981–1994	[43]
KwaZulu	South Africa	No	1981–1994	[43]
Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic	Soviet Union	Yes	1940–1941, 1944–1991
Gonâve Island	Haiti	No	1920s
Lebowa	South Africa	No	1972–1994	[43]
Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic	Soviet Union	Yes	1940–1941, 1944–1990/1991
Macedonia	Yugoslavia	Yes	1945–1991	[20]
Montenegro	Yugoslavia,   Serbia and Montenegro	Yes	1945–2006	[20]
Moldavian ASSR	Ukrainian SSR,   Soviet Union	union republic	1924–1940
Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic	Soviet Union	Yes	1940–1991
Ovamboland	South Africa	No	1973–1989	[43]
QwaQwa	South Africa	No	1974–1994	[43]
Russian SFSR	Soviet Union	Yes	1917–1991	[4]
Serbia	Yugoslavia,   Serbia and Montenegro	Yes	1945–2006	[20]
Singapore	Malaysia	Yes	1963–1965	[5]
Slovak Socialist Republic	Czechoslovakia	Yes	1969–1993	[33]
Slovenia	Yugoslavia	Yes	1945–1991	[20]
South West Africa (Namibia)	South Africa	Yes	1915–1990	[44]
Southern Sudan	Sudan	Yes	2005–2011	[45]
Transkei	South Africa	De jure	1976–1994	[43]
Trucial States	United Kingdom	Yes	1820–1971	[46]
Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic	Soviet Union	Yes	1929–1991
Turkestan ASSR	Russian SFSR	No	1918–1924	[47]
Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic	Soviet Union	Yes	1925–1991
Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets	Russian SFSR	No	1917–1918
Ukrainian Soviet Republic	Russian SFSR	No	1918
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic	Russian SFSR,   Soviet Union	Yes	1919–1991	[48]
Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic	Soviet Union	Yes	1924–1991
Venda	South Africa	De jure	1979–1994	[43]

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

Current

Proto-state	Parent state	Achieved statehood	Since	Source
Abkhazia	Georgia	De facto	1992
Al-Qaeda	Mali   Somalia	De facto	2006
Al-Shabaab	Somalia	No	2009	[49]
Allied Democratic Forces	Democratic Republic of the Congo   Uganda	No	1996	[50]
Ambazonia	Cameroon	No	2017
Ansar al-Sharia (Yemen)	Yemen	No	2011	[49]
Ansar al-Sunna	Mozambique	No	2020
Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria	Syria	Partial	2012	[51]
Cabinda	Angola	No	1975
Coalition of Patriots for Change	Central African Republic	No	2020
Houthi movement	Yemen	No	2004	[ needs update? ]
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan	Islamic State of Afghanistan	Yes	1994
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan	Pakistan	No	2006	[49]
Islamic State	Iraq   Syria   Afghanistan   Somalia   Yemen   Nigeria   Libya   Mozambique	De facto	2013	[29] [52] [53] [ needs update? ]
Kachin	Myanmar	No	1961
Khatumo	Somalia	No	2012
Kosovo	Serbia	De facto	2008
Mai-Mai	Democratic Republic of the Congo	No	2015
National Democratic Alliance Army	Myanmar	No	1989
National Resistance Front of Afghanistan	Afghanistan	No	2021
Nduma Defense of Congo-Renovated	Democratic Republic of the Congo	No	2015
Northern Cyprus	Cyprus	De facto	1974
Oromo Liberation Front	Ethiopia	No	1973
Revolutionary Commando Army	Syria	No	2016
Sahrawi Republic	Morocco	Partial	1976	[54]
State of Palestine	Israel	De facto	1988
Somaliland	Somalia	De facto	1991
South Ossetia	Georgia	De facto	1991
Southern Transitional Council	Yemen	De facto	2017
Sudan Revolutionary Front	Sudan	No	2011
Syrian Interim Government	Syria	No	2013
Syrian Salvation Government	Syria	No	2017
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan	Pakistan	No	2002	[49]
Tigray People's Liberation Front	Ethiopia	Partial	2020
Transnistria	Moldova	De facto	1990
United Wa State Army	Myanmar	No	1989
West Papua	Indonesia	No	1971

Former

Proto-state	Parent state	Achieved statehood	Dates	Source
Al-Nusra Front	Syria	No	2012–2017	[52]
Ansar al-Islam	Iraq	No	2001–2003	[49]
Angola	Portugal	Yes	1961–1975
Ansar al-Sharia (Libya)	Libya	No	2014–2017	[52]
Ansar Dine	Mali	No	2012–2013	[52]
Donetsk People's Republic and   Luhansk People's Republic	Ukraine	De facto	2014–2022	[55]
Armed Forces of South Russia	Russia	No	1919–1920	[56]
Azawad	Mali	De facto	2012–2013	[8]
Boko Haram	Nigeria   Cameroon	No	2013–2015	[52]
Carpatho-Ukraine	Czechoslovakia,   Hungary	De facto	1938–1939
Chechen Republic of Ichkeria	Russia	De facto	1991–2000	[30]
Chinese Soviet Republic	China	No	1931–1937	[23]
Communist China	China	Yes	1927–1949	[23]
Dar al-Kuti	Central African Republic	De facto	2015–2021	[57]
Dubrovnik Republic	Croatia	No	1991–1992	[5]
Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia	Croatia	No	1995–1998	[5]
FARC	Colombia	No	1964–2017	[58]
Fatah al-Islam	Lebanon	No	2007	[49]
Fujian	China	No	1933–1934
Armed Islamic Group of Algeria	Algeria	No	1993–1995	[49]
Herzeg-Bosnia	Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina	No	1991–1996	[5]
Hyderabad State	India	De facto	1947–1948	[5]
Idel-Ural State	Russia	No	1917–1918	[59]
Irish Republic	United Kingdom	Yes	1919–1922	[60]
Islamic Emirate of Kunar	Republic of Afghanistan	No	1989–1991	[49]
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan	Islamic State of Afghanistan	De facto	1996–2001
Islamic Republic of Imbaba	Egypt	No	1989–1992	[49]
Jamiat-e Islami	Democratic Republic of Afghanistan	No	1982–1989	[61]
Republic of Kosova	FR Yugoslavia	No	1992–1999	[62]
Kharkiv People's Republic	Ukraine	No	2014	[63]
Jiangxi	China	No	1931–1937	[23]
Jubaland	Somalia	No	1998–2001	[38]
Junbish-e Milli	Republic of Afghanistan (until April 28)   Islamic State of Afghanistan (from April 28)	No	1992–1997	[64]
Liberated Yugoslavia	Independent State of Croatia Occupied Serbia	Yes	1942–1945	[65]
Mongolia	China	Yes	1911–1946
Mozambique	Portugal	Yes	1964–1974	[note 2]
Revolutionary Vietnam	South Vietnam	No	1969–1976	[54]
Republika Srpska	Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina	No	1991–1995	[5]
Red Spears' rebel area in Dengzhou	China	No	1929	[66]
Serbian Krajina	Croatia	No	1991–1995	[67]
Sudetenland	Czechoslovakia	No	1918–1938	[68]
"Taylorland" or Greater Liberia	Liberia	No	1990–1995/97	[note 3]
Tamil Eelam	Sri Lanka	No	1983–2009	[58] [71] [72]
Tibet	China	No	1912–1951	[note 4]
Ukrainian National Government	Soviet Union,   Nazi Germany	No	1941
Ukrainian People's Republic	Russian Republic,   Russian SFSR	Yes	1917–1921
United States	Great Britain	Yes	1776–1783
West Ukrainian People's Republic	Austria-Hungary,   Poland	No	1918–1919
Western Bosnia	Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina	No	1993–1995	[5]
Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities	Mexico	De facto	1994–2023
Zaporozhian Sich	Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth	Yes	16th century–1649	[73]

See also

• Aspirant state
• Deep state
• Failed state
• List of sovereign states
• Nation-building
• Rump state
• Sovereign state
• State-building

Notes and references

Annotations

1. Jubaland declared itself independent of Somalia in 1998. ^[38] It technically rejoined Somalia in 2001 when its ruling Juba Valley Alliance became part of the country's Transitional Federal Government. However, Jubaland has continued to persist as a more or less autonomous state. ^[39]
2. The erosion of Portuguese military control over northern Mozambique during the Mozambican War of Independence allowed local guerrillas to establish a proto-state there, which survived until the war ended in 1974. Home to about a million people, the miniature insurgent proto-state was managed by FRELIMO's civilian wing and was able to provide administrative services, open trade relations with Tanzania, and even supervise the construction of its own schools and hospitals with foreign aid. ^[21]
3. In course of the First Liberian Civil War, the Liberian central government effectively collapsed, allowing warlords to establish their own fiefs. One of the most powerful rebel leaders in Liberia, Charles Taylor, set up his own domain in a way resembling an actual state: He reorganised his militia into a military-like organisation (split into Army, Marines, Navy, and Executive Mansion Guard), established his de facto capital at Gbarnga, and created a civilian government and justice system under his control that were supposed to enforce law and order. The area under his control was commonly called "Taylorland" or "Greater Liberia" and even became somewhat stable and peaceful until it largely disintegrated in 1994/5 as result of attacks by rival militias. In the end, however, Taylor won the civil war and was elected President of Liberia, with his regime becoming the new central government. ^{[69] [70]}
4. See Tibetan sovereignty debate

References

1. Fairfield, Hannah; Wallace, Tim; Watkins, Derek (21 May 2015). "How ISIS Expands". The New York Times . New York. Archived from the original on 23 May 2015. Retrieved 15 September 2020.
2. John P. Grant; J. Craig Barker (2009). "Quasi-State". Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 493, 580. ISBN   978-0-19-538977-7. OL   23213349M. Wikidata   Q105755921. 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 . . .
3. "How the Islamic State Declared War on the World". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2016-07-20.
4. Hahn, Gordon (2002). Russia's Revolution from Above, 1985-2000: Reform, Transition, and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. p. 527. ISBN   978-0765800497.
5. Griffiths, Ryan (2016). Age of Secession: The International and Domestic Determinants of State Birth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 85–102, 213–242. ISBN   978-1107161627.
6. Jackson, Robert H. (1991). Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 21–22. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511559020. ISBN   978-0-521-44783-6.
7. "HIC: VJESNIK, Podlistak, 16 i 17. travnja 2005., VELIKOSRPSKA TVOREVINA NA HRVATSKOM TLU: IZVORNI DOKUMENTI O DJELOVANJU 'REPUBLIKE SRPSKE KRAJINE' (XXIX.)". Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
8. Alvarado, David (May 2012). "Independent Azawad: Tuaregs, Jihadists, and an Uncertain Future for Mali" (PDF). Barcelona: Barcelona Center for International Affairs. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 March 2017. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
9. Lia (2015), pp. 31–32.
10. "The caliphate cracks". The Economist. ISSN   0013-0613 . Retrieved 2016-07-20.
11. "The Islamic State: More than a Terrorist Group?". E-International Relations. 3 April 2015. Retrieved 2016-07-20.
12. Scheidel, Walter; Morris, Ian (2009). The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 5–6, 132. ISBN   978-0195371581.
13. Runciman, W. G. (July 1982). "Origins of States: The Case of Archaic 351–377 Greece". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 24 (3): 351–377. doi:10.1017/S0010417500010045. ISSN   0010-4175. S2CID   145247889.
14. Kim, Hyun Jin (2015). The Huns. Abingdon: Routledge Books. pp. 3–6. ISBN   978-1138841758.
15. Borza, Eugene (1992). In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 238–240. ISBN   978-0691008806.
16. Duverger, Maurice (1972). The Study of Politics . Surrey: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Publishers. pp.  144–145. ISBN   978-0690790214.
17. Beattie, Andrew (2011). The Danube: A Cultural History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 35. ISBN   978-0199768356.
18. Abernethy, David (2002). The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415-1980. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 327–328. ISBN   978-0300093148.
19. Morier-Genoud, Eric (2012). Sure Road? Nationalisms in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 2. ISBN   978-9004222618.
20. Kostovicova, Denisa (2005). Kosovo: The Politics of Identity and Space . New York: Routledge Books. pp.  5–7. ISBN   978-0415348065.
21. Sellström, Tor (2002). Sweden and National Liberation in Southern Africa: Vol. 2 : Solidarity and assistance, 1970–1994. Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute. pp. 97–99. ISBN   978-91-7106-448-6.
22. Christian, Patrick James (2011). A Combat Advisor's Guide to Tribal Engagement: History, Law and War as Operational Elements. Boca Raton: Universal Publishers. pp. 36–37. ISBN   978-1599428161.
23. McColl, R. W. (2005). Encyclopedia of World Geography, Volume 1. New York: Facts on File, Incorporated. pp. 397–398, 466. ISBN   978-0-8160-5786-3.
24. Torreblanca, José Ignacio (12 July 2010). "Estados-embrión". El País (in Spanish). Retrieved 18 March 2016.
25. Segurado, Nacho (16 April 2015). "¿Por qué Estado Islámico le está ganando la partida a los herederos de Bin Laden?". 20 minutos (in Spanish). Retrieved 12 March 2016.
26. Rengel, Carmen (5 April 2015). "Javier Martín: "El Estado Islámico tiene espíritu de gobernar y permanecer"". huffingtonpost.es (in Spanish). Retrieved 12 March 2016.
27. Keatinge, Tom (2016-03-08). "Islamic State: The struggle to stay rich - BBC News" . Retrieved 17 March 2016.
28. Martín Rodríguez, Javier (2015). Estado Islámico. Geopolítica del Caos [Islamic State: Geopolitics of Chaos] (in Spanish) (3rd ed.). Madrid, Spain: Los Libros de la Catarata. p. 15. ISBN   978-84-9097-054-6. Archived from the original on 2017-12-03. Retrieved 2016-04-22.
29. Middleton, Nick (2015). An Atlas of Countries That Don't Exist: A Compendium of Fifty Unrecognized and Largely Unnoticed States. London: Macmillan Publishers. pp. 14–16. ISBN   978-1447295273.
30. Coggins, Bridget (2014). Power Politics and State Formation in the Twentieth Century: The Dynamics of Recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–64, 173. ISBN   978-1107047358.
31. Augusteijn, Joost (2002). The Irish Revolution, 1913-1923 . Basingstoke: Palgrave. p.  13. ISBN   978-0333982266.
32. Araoye, Ademola (2013). Okome, Mojubaolu (ed.). Contesting the Nigerian State: Civil Society and the Contradictions of Self-Organization. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. p. 35. ISBN   978-1137324528.
33. Newton, Kenneth; Van Deth, Jan (2016). Foundations of Comparative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 364–365. ISBN   978-1107582859.
34. "Euromosaic - Swedish in Finland". www.uoc.edu. Retrieved 2017-11-11.
35. Roeder, Philip (2007). Where Nation-States Come From: Institutional Change in the Age of Nationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 281. ISBN   978-0691134673.
36. "L0601-1850". www.planalto.gov.br. Retrieved 2021-07-17.
37. Dyer, Gwynne (2015). Don't Panic: ISIS, Terror and Today's Middle East. Toronto: Random House Canada. pp. 105–107. ISBN   978-0345815866.
38. Piskunova, Natalia (2010). Krishna-Hensel, Sai Felicia (ed.). Order and Disorder in the International System. London: Routledge Books. p. 126. ISBN   978-140940505-4.
39. "Somalia". World Statesmen. Retrieved March 9, 2006. - also shows Italian colonial flag & links to map
40. Palmer, Andrew (2014). The New Pirates: Modern Global Piracy from Somalia to the South China Sea. London: I.B. Tauris, Publishers. p. 74. ISBN   978-1848856332.
41. 29 December 2004, 佤帮双雄, Phoenix TV
42. Steinmüller, Hans (2018). "Conscription by Capture in the Wa State of Myanmar: acquaintances, anonymity, patronage, and the rejection of mutuality" (PDF). London School of Economics. Archived (PDF) from the original on Jan 9, 2023.
43. Marx, Anthony (1998). Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of South Africa, the United States, and Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 106. ISBN   978-0521585903.
44. Hague Academy of International Law (1978). Recueil des cours: Collected courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Publishers. pp. 100–101. ISBN   978-90-286-0759-0.
45. Suzuki, Eisuke (2015). Noortmann, Math; Reinisch, August; Ryngaert, Cedric (eds.). Non-State Actors in International Law. Portland: Hart Publishing. p. 40. ISBN   978-1849465113.
46. Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates (2013). Dargin, Justin (ed.). The Rise of the Global South: Philosophical, Geopolitical and Economic Trends of the 21st Century. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company. pp. 155–156. ISBN   978-9814397803.
47. Reeves, Madeleine (2014). Border Work: Spatial Lives of the State in Rural Central Asia . Ithaca: Cornell University Press. p.  66. ISBN   978-0801477065.
48. Ryabchuk, Mykola (1994). "Between Civil Society and the New Etatism: Democracy in the Making and State Building in Ukraine". In Kennedy, Michael D. (ed.). Envisioning Eastern Europe: Postcommunist Cultural Studies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. p. 135. ISBN   0-472-10556-6. 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.
49. Lia (2015), p. 33.
50. Daniel Fahey (19 February 2015). "New insights on Congo's Islamist rebels". The Washington Post . Retrieved 16 October 2017.
51. Williams, Brian Glyn (2016-10-20). Counter Jihad: America's Military Experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN   9780812248678.
52. Lia (2015), p. 34.
53. Van Engeland, Anicée (2016). "Remarks by Anicée van Engeland". Proceedings of the Asil Annual Meeting. 110: 225–228. doi:10.1017/S0272503700103052. S2CID   233341833.
54. Domínguez, Jorge (1989). To Make a World Safe for Revolution: Cuba's Foreign Policy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 127–128. ISBN   978-0674893252.
55. Socor, Vladimir (2016). "Conserved Conflict: Russia's Pattern in Ukraine's East". In Iancu, Niculae; Fortuna, Andrei; Barna, Cristian; Teodor, Mihaela (eds.). Countering Hybrid Threats: Lessons Learned from Ukraine. Washington, DC: IOS Press. pp. 187–192. ISBN   978-1614996507. 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.
56. Shambarov, V. The State and revolutions (Государство и революции) . "Algoritm". Moscow, 2001 (in Russian)
57. "Central African Republic rebels declare autonomous state in north". The Washington Post. 15 December 2015. Retrieved 20 December 2015.
58. Faure, Guy Olivier; Zartman, I. William (1997). Engaging Extremists: Trade-offs, Timing, and Diplomacy. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press. p. 5. ISBN   978-1601270740.
59. Roberts, Glenn (2007). Commissar and Mullah: Soviet-Muslim Policy from 1917 to 1924. Boca Raton: Universal Publishers. p. 14. ISBN   978-1581123494.
60. Suzman, Mark (1999). Ethnic Nationalism and State Power: The Rise of Irish Nationalism, Afrikaner Nationalism and Zionism. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. pp. 144–145. ISBN   978-0312220280.
61. Defence Journal . Ikram ul-Majeed Sehgal, 2006, Volume 9-10 Collected Issues 12(9)-12 (10) page 47.
62. 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 Archived April 20, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
63. "Ukraine Authorities Clear Kharkiv Building, Arrest Scores Of 'Separatists'". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty . April 8, 2014.
64. "Rashid Dostum: The treacherous general". Independent.co.uk . December 2001.
65. Laqueur, Walter (1997). Guerrilla Warfare: A Historical and Critical Study. Piscataway, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. p. 218. ISBN   978-0765804068.
66. Bianco (2015), p. 6.
67. Glaurdic, Josip (2011). The Hour of Europe: Western Powers and the Breakup of Yugoslavia. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 149. ISBN   978-0300166293.
68. Gilbert, Martin; Gott, Richard (1967). The Appeasers. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
69. Dwyer 2015, pp. 39, 40, 62.
70. Lidow 2016, pp. 116–130.
71. "Sri Lanka vs. Tamil Eelam".
72. "CFA gave de facto recognition to Eelam: LTTE". 23 February 2007.
73. Essen (2018), p. 83.

Bibliography

• Bianco, Lucien (2015). Peasants without the Party: Grassroots Movements in Twentieth Century China. Abingdon-on-Thames, New York City: Routledge. ISBN   978-1563248405.
• Dwyer, Johnny (2015). American Warlord. A true story. New York City: Vintage Books.
• Essen, Michael Fredholm von (2018). Muscovy's Soldiers. The Emergence of the Russian Army 1462–1689. Warwick: Helion & Company. ISBN   978-1912390106.
• Lidow, Nicholai Hart (2016). Violent Order: Understanding Rebel Governance through Liberia's Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lia, Brynjar (August 2015). "Understanding Jihadi Proto-States" (PDF). Perspectives on Terrorism. 9 (4): 31–41. ISSN   2334-3745.