Difference between revisions of "Talk:Knootian Federation"
From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Tanah Burung (Talk | contribs) (nit-picking) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Minor diplomatic protocol point: the exchange of ambassadors would constitute a de jure recognition of another nation's sovereignty, even if not ratified by treaty -- you can't send an ambassador to a state you don't recognize. [[User:Tanah Burung|TB]] | Minor diplomatic protocol point: the exchange of ambassadors would constitute a de jure recognition of another nation's sovereignty, even if not ratified by treaty -- you can't send an ambassador to a state you don't recognize. [[User:Tanah Burung|TB]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ah, yes, I wanted to link you to this later today. Anyway, I always presumed that there was no ambassador till the Bi Bere agreement. And not claiming it in a new arrangement would be a de facto (not a de jure) recognition. Does that make sense? --[[User:Knootoss| |Knoot]]|[[User talk:Knootoss|KNOO<small>talk</small>]] 18:31, 23 Oct 2004 (GMT) | ||
Latest revision as of 14:31, 23 October 2004
Minor diplomatic protocol point: the exchange of ambassadors would constitute a de jure recognition of another nation's sovereignty, even if not ratified by treaty -- you can't send an ambassador to a state you don't recognize. TB
Ah, yes, I wanted to link you to this later today. Anyway, I always presumed that there was no ambassador till the Bi Bere agreement. And not claiming it in a new arrangement would be a de facto (not a de jure) recognition. Does that make sense? -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 18:31, 23 Oct 2004 (GMT)
