Proto-state

A proto-state, also known as a quasi-state,[1] is a political entity that does not represent a fully institutionalized or autonomous sovereign state.[2]

Not to be confused with protostates or state within a state.

Areas controlled by ISIL, frequently described as a "proto-state", on 21 May 2015

The precise definition of proto-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.[3] Similarly, the Republics of the Soviet Union, which represented administrative units with their own respective national distinctions, have also been described as proto-states.[2]

In more recent usage, the term proto-state has most often been evoked in reference to militant secessionist groups that claim, and exercise some form of territorial control over, a specific region but lack institutional cohesion.[3] Such proto-states include the Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia during the Bosnian War[3] and Azawad during the 2012 Tuareg rebellion.[4] The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is also widely held to be an example of a modern proto-state.[5][1][6][7]

History

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

The term "proto-state" has been used in 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.[8] For instance, historical sociologist Gary Runciman noted that Greek city-states in classical antiquity such as Athens were initially weak proto-states that later evolved into larger and more centralised political entities.[8] 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.[8] 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.[8] 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.[9]

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.[10] 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.[11] 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.[12]

Following the Age of Discovery, the emergence of European colonialism resulted in the formation of colonial proto-states in Asia, Africa, and the Americas.[13] 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.[3] These were distinct administrative units that each fulfilled many of the functions of a state without actually exercising full sovereignty or independence.[13] 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.[14] Colonial proto-states later served as the basis for a number of modern nation states, particularly on the Asian and African continents.[13]

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.[3][2][15]

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 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.[5] 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.[16] 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.[17] 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.[17]

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.[18] 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.[19] 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,[20][21][22] that maintained its own administrative bureaucracy and imposed taxes.[23]

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.[24] 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.[24]

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.[24] 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.[24] 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.[25] 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.[25]

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.[3] Home rule generates a sub-national institutional structure that may justifiably be defined as a proto-state.[26] 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.[27] 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.[27] 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.[18] 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.[18]

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.[28] 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.[28]

Proto-states can be important regional players, as their existence impacts the options available to state actors, either as potential allies or as impediments to their political or economic policy articulations.[27]

List of modern proto-states

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

Constituent proto-states

Current

Proto-state	Parent state	Achieved statehood	Since	Source
Adjara	Georgia	No	1921	[3]
Adygea	Russia	No	1922	[3]
Åland	Finland	No	1921	[3][29]
Altai Republic	Russia	No	1922	[3]
Aosta Valley	Italy	No	1948	[3]
Aruba	Netherlands	No	1986	[3]
Ashanti	Ghana	No	1957	[30]
Azad Kashmir	Pakistan	No	1949	[3]
Azores	Portugal	No	1816	[3]
Bashkortostan	Russia	No	1919	[3]
British Virgin Islands	United Kingdom	No	1960	[3]
Bougainville	Papua New Guinea	No	2001	[3]
Buryatia	Russia	No	1923	[3]
Canary Islands	Spain	No	1816	[3]
Catalonia	Spain	No	1978	[3]
Cayman Islands	United Kingdom	No	1962	[3]
Chechnya	Russia	No	1922	[3]
Chin State	Myanmar	No	1949	[3]
Christmas Island	Australia	No	1958	[3]
Chuvashia	Russia	No	1920	[3]
Cook Islands	New Zealand	No	1888	[3]
Corsica	France	No	1978	[3]
Curaçao	Netherlands	No	1816	[3]
Dagestan	Russia	No	1921	[3]
Easter Island	Chile	No	1944	[3]
Euskadi	Spain	No	1978	[3]
Falkland Islands	United Kingdom	No	1833	[3]
Faroe Islands	Denmark	No	1816	[3]
Flanders	Belgium	No	1970	[3]
French Polynesia	France	No	1847	[3]
Friuli-Venezia Giulia	Italy	No	1963	[3]
Gagauzia	Moldova	No	1991	[3]
Galicia	Spain	No	1978	[3]
Gaza Strip	Israel  Palestine	De facto	1994	[note 1]
Greenland	Denmark	No	1816	[3]
Guam	United States	No	1816	[3]
Guernsey	United Kingdom	No	1204	[3]
Indian reservations	United States	No	1658	[3]
Ingushetia	Russia	No	1924	[3]
Iraqi Kurdistan	Iraq	De facto	1991	[32]
Isle of Man	United Kingdom	No	1828	[3]
Jammu and Kashmir	India	No	1921	[3]
Jersey	United Kingdom	No	1204	[3]
Jewish Autonomous Oblast	Russia	No	1934
Jubaland	Somalia	No	2001	[note 2]
Kabardino-Balkaria	Russia	No	1921	[3]
Kachin State	Myanmar	No	1949	[3]
Kalmykia	Russia	No	1920	[3]
Karachay-Cherkessia	Russia	No	1922	[3]
Karelia	Russia	No	1923	[3]
Kayah State	Myanmar	No	1949	[3]
Kayin State	Myanmar	No	1949	[3]
Khakassia	Russia	No	1934	[3]
Komi Republic	Russia	No	1922	[3]
Kosovo	Serbia	De facto	2008	[3]
Madeira	Portugal	No	1816	[3]
Mari El	Russia	No	1920	[3]
Marquesas Islands	France	No	1844	[3]
Montserrat	United Kingdom	No	1632	[3]
Mon State	Myanmar	No	1949	[3]
Mordovia	Russia	No	1934	[3]
New Caledonia	France	No	1853	[3]
Northern Ireland	United Kingdom	No	1922	[3]
Northern Marianas	United States	No	1899	[3]
North Ossetia-Alania	Russia	No	1921	[3]
Nunavut	Canada	No	1999	[3]
Palestinian National Authority	Israel	De jure	1993	[35]
Puerto Rico	United States	No	1816	[3]
Puntland	Somalia	No	1998	[36]
Quebec	Canada	No	1816	[3]
Saint Helena	United Kingdom	No	1834	[3]
Sardinia	Italy	No	1816	[3]
Sakha Republic	Russia	No	1922	[3]
Scotland	United Kingdom	No	1816	[3]
Shan State	Myanmar	No	1949	[3]
Sicily	Italy	No	1816	[3]
Sint Maarten	Netherlands	No	1848	[3]
Svalbard	Norway	No	1992	[3]
Tatarstan	Russia	No	1920	[3]
Temotu	Solomon Islands	No	1981	[3]
Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol	Italy	No	1948	[3]
Turks and Caicos	United Kingdom	No	1973	[3]
Tuva	Russia	No	1911	[3]
Udmurtia	Russia	No	1920	[3]
United States Virgin Islands	United States	No	1816	[3]
Wales	United Kingdom	No	1816	[3]
Wallonia	Belgium	No	1970	[3]
Zanzibar	Tanzania	No	1964	[3]

Former

Proto-state	Parent state	Achieved statehood	Dates	Source
Bophuthatswana	South Africa	De jure	1977–1994	[37]
Bosnia-Herzegovina	Yugoslavia	Yes	1943–1992	[15]
Ciskei	South Africa	De jure	1981–1994	[37]
Republic of Crimea	Ukraine	No	March 11–18, 2014	[38][39]
Croatia	Yugoslavia	Yes	1943–1991	[15]
Czech Socialist Republic	Czechoslovakia	Yes	1969–1993	[28]
East Caprivi	South Africa	No	1972–1989	[37]
Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic	Finland	No	1918
Gazankulu	South Africa	No	1971–1994	[37]
Hereroland	South Africa	No	1970–1989	[37]
KaNgwane	South Africa	No	1972–1994	[37]
Kavangoland	South Africa	No	1973–1989	[37]
KwaNdebele	South Africa	No	1981–1994	[37]
KwaZulu	South Africa	No	1981–1994	[37]
Lebowa	South Africa	No	1972–1994	[37]
Macedonia	Yugoslavia	Yes	1945–1991	[15]
Montenegro	Yugoslavia	Yes	1945–1992	[15]
Ovamboland	South Africa	No	1973–1989	[37]
QwaQwa	South Africa	No	1974–1994	[37]
Russian SFSR	Soviet Union	Yes	1917–1991	[2]
Serbia	Yugoslavia	Yes	1945–1992	[15]
Singapore	Malaysia	Yes	1963–1965	[3]
Slovak Socialist Republic	Czechoslovakia	Yes	1969–1993	[28]
Slovenia	Yugoslavia	Yes	1945–1991	[15]
South West Africa (Namibia)	South Africa	Yes	1915–1991	[40]
Southern Sudan	Sudan	Yes	2005–2011	[41]
Transkei	South Africa	De jure	1976–1994	[37]
Trucial States	United Kingdom	Yes	1820–1971	[42]
Turkestan ASSR	Russian SFSR	No	1918–1924	[43]
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	[44]
Venda	South Africa	De jure	1979–1994	[37]

Secessionist and insurgent proto-states

Current

Proto-state	Parent state	Achieved statehood	Since	Source
Abkhazia	Georgia	De facto	1992
Al-Shabaab	Somalia	No	2009	[5]
Allied Democratic Forces	Democratic Republic of the Congo  Uganda	No	1996	[45]
Ambazonia	Cameroon	No	2017
Ansar al-Sharia (Yemen)	Yemen	No	2011	[5]
Dar El Kuti	Central African Republic	De facto	2015	[46]
Donetsk People's Republic	Ukraine	De facto	2014	[47]
Islamic State (ISIL)	Iraq  Syria  Afghanistan  Somalia  Yemen  Nigeria  Libya	No	2013	[24][48][49]
Luhansk People's Republic	Ukraine	De facto	2014	[47]
Republic of Artsakh	Azerbaijan/ Armenia	De facto	1991
Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria	Syria	Partial	2013	[50]
Sahrawi Republic	Morocco	Partial	1976	[51]
Somaliland	Somalia	De facto	1991	[25]
South Ossetia	Georgia	De facto	1991
Transnistria	Moldova	De facto	1990
Southern Transitional Council	Yemen	De facto	2017
Taliban	Afghanistan	No	2002	[52]

Former

Proto-state	Parent state	Achieved statehood	Dates	Source
Al-Nusra Front	Syria	No	2012–2017	[5]
Ansar al-Islam	Iraq	No	2001–2003	[5]
Angola	Portugal	Yes	1961–1975
Ansar al-Sharia (Libya)	Libya	No	2014–2017	[5]
Ansar Dine	Mali	No	2012–2013	[5]
Armed Forces of South Russia	Russia	No	1919–1920	[53]
Azawad	Mali	De facto	2012–2013	[4]
Boko Haram	Nigeria  Cameroon	No	2013–2015	[5]
Carpatho-Ukraine	Czechoslovakia,  Hungary	De facto	1938–1939
Chechen Ichkeria	Russia	No	1991–2000	[25]
Chinese Soviet Republic	China	No	1931–1937	[18]
Communist China	China	Yes	1927–1949	[18]
Dubrovnik Republic	Yugoslavia	No	1991–1992	[3]
Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia	Yugoslavia	No	1995–1998	[3]
FARC	Colombia	No	1964–2017	[52]
Groupe islamique armé	Algeria	No	1993–1995	[5]
Herzeg-Bosnia	Bosnia-Herzegovina	No	1991–1996	[3]
Hyderabad State	India	De facto	1947–1948	[3]
Idel-Ural State	Russia	No	1917–1918	[54]
Irish Republic	United Kingdom	Yes	1919–1922	[55]
Jamiat-e Islami	Afghanistan	No	1982–1989	[56]
Republic of Kosova	Serbia and Montenegro	No	1992–1999	[57]
Jubaland	Somalia	No	1998–2001	[33]
Junbish-e Milli	Afghanistan	No	1992-1997	[58]
Liberated Yugoslavia	Croatia Occupied Serbia	Yes	1942–1945	[59]
Mozambique	Portugal	Yes	1964–1974	[note 3]
Revolutionary Vietnam	South Vietnam	No	1969–1976	[51]
Republika Srpska	Bosnia-Herzegovina	No	1991–1995	[3]
Red Spears' rebel area in Dengzhou	China	No	1929	[60]
Serbian Krajina	Croatia	No	1991–1995	[61]
Sudetenland	Czechoslovakia	No	1918–1938	[62]
"Taylorland" or Greater Liberia	Liberia	No	1990–1995/97	[note 4]
Tamil Eelam	Sri Lanka	No	1983–2008	[52]
Ukrainian National Government	Soviet Union,  Nazi Germany	No	1941
Ukrainian People's Republic	Russian Republic,  Russian SFSR	Yes	1917–1921
UNITA	Angola	No	1975–2002	[65]
United States	Great Britain	Yes	1776-1783
West Ukrainian People's Republic	Austria-Hungary,  Poland	No	1918–1919
Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia	Yugoslavia	No	1993–1995	[3]
Zaporozhian Sich	Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth	Yes	16th century–1649	[66]

See also

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

Notes and references

Annotations

1. Although officially controlled by the Palestinian National Authority, the Gaza Strip is administered separately and has achieved its own unique sub-national status as a Palestinian proto-state.[31]
2. Jubaland declared itself independent of Somalia in 1998.[33] 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.[34]
3. 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.[16]
4. 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 reorganized his militia into a military-like organization (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.[63][64]

References

1. "How the Islamic State Declared War on the World". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2016-07-20.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Lia, Brynjar (2015-07-21). "Understanding Jihadi Proto-States". Perspectives on Terrorism. 9 (4). ISSN 2334-3745.
6. "The caliphate cracks". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2016-07-20.
7. "The Islamic State: More than a Terrorist Group?". E-International Relations. Retrieved 2016-07-20.
8. 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.
9. Kim, Hyun Jin (2015). The Huns. Abingdon: Routledge Books. pp. 3–6. ISBN 978-1138841758.
10. Borza, Eugene (1992). In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 238–240. ISBN 978-0691008806.
11. Duverger, Maurice (1972). The Study of Politics. Surrey: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Publishers. pp. 144–145. ISBN 978-0690790214.
12. Beattie, Andrew (2011). The Danube: A Cultural History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-0199768356.
13. Abernethy, David (2002). The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415-1980. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 327–328. ISBN 978-0300093148.
14. Morier-Genoud, Eric (2012). Sure Road? Nationalisms in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 2. ISBN 978-9004222618.
15. Kostovicova, Denisa (2005). Kosovo: The Politics of Identity and Space. New York: Routledge Books. pp. 5–7. ISBN 978-0415348065.
16. Sellström, Tor (2002). Sweden and National Liberation in Southern Africa: Solidarity and assistance, 1970–1994. Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute. pp. 97–99. ISBN 978-91-7106-448-6.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Torreblanca, José Ignacio (12 July 2010). "Estados-embrión". El País (in Spanish). Retrieved 18 March 2016 – via http://www.elpais.com/.
20. 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 – via http://www.20minutos.es/.
21. Rengel, Carmen (5 April 2015). "Javier Martín: "El Estado Islámico tiene espíritu de gobernar y permanecer"" (in Spanish). Retrieved 12 March 2016 – via http://www.huffingtonpost.es/.
22. Keatinge, Tom (2016-03-08). "Islamic State: The struggle to stay rich - BBC News". Retrieved 17 March 2016.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Augusteijn, Joost (2002). The Irish Revolution, 1913-1923. Basingstoke: Palgrave. p. 13. ISBN 978-0333982266.
27. 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.
28. Newton, Kenneth; Van Deth, Jan (2016). Foundations of Comparative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 364–365. ISBN 978-1107582859.
29. "Euromosaic - Swedish in Finland". www.uoc.edu. Retrieved 2017-11-11.
30. Roeder, Philip (2007). Where Nation-States Come From: Institutional Change in the Age of Nationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 281. ISBN 978-0691134673.
31. Dyer, Gwynne (2010). Crawling from the Wreckage. Toronto: Random House of Canada, Ltd. p. 298. ISBN 978-0307358929.
32. Dyer, Gwynne (2015). Don't Panic: ISIS, Terror and Today's Middle East. Toronto: Random House Canada. pp. 105–107. ISBN 978-0345815866.
33. Piskunova, Natalia (2010). Krishna-Hensel, Sai Felicia (ed.). Order and Disorder in the International System. London: Routledge Books. p. 126. ISBN 978-140940505-4.
34. "Somalia". World Statesmen. Retrieved March 9, 2006. - also shows Italian colonial flag & links to map
35. Tillery, Virginia (2013). Faris, Hani (ed.). The Failure of the Two-State Solution: The Prospects of One State in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. London: I.B.Tauris, Publishers. pp. 28–29. ISBN 978-1780760940.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Ukraine crisis: Crimea parliament asks to join Russia. BBC. 6 March 2014
39. de Charbonnel, Alissa (2014-03-12). "How the separatists delivered Crimea to Moscow". Reuters. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
40. 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.
41. Suzuki, Eisuke (2015). Noortmann, Math; Reinisch, August; Ryngaert, Cedric (eds.). Non-State Actors in International Law. Portland: Hart Publishing. p. 40. ISBN 978-1849465113.
42. 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.
43. Reeves, Madeleine (2014). Border Work: Spatial Lives of the State in Rural Central Asia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-0801477065.
44. 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 legitimized 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. Daniel Fahey (19 February 2015). "New insights on Congo's Islamist rebels". The Washington Post. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
46. "Central African Republic rebels declare autonomous state in north". The Washington Post. 15 December 2015. Retrieved 20 December 2015.
47. Socor, Vladimir (2016). Iancu, Niculae; Fortuna, Andrei; Barna, Cristian; Teodor, Mihaela (eds.). Countering Hybrid Threats: Lessons Learned from Ukraine. Washington, DC: IOS Press. pp. 188–190. ISBN 978-1614996507.
48. Lia, Brynjar (21 July 2015). "Understanding Jihadi Proto-States". Perspectives on Terrorism. 9 (4).
49. Van Engeland, Anicée (2016). "Remarks by Anicée van Engeland". Proceedings of the Asil Annual Meeting. 110: 225–228. doi:10.1017/S0272503700103052.
50. Williams, Brian Glyn (2016-10-20). Counter Jihad: America's Military Experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780812248678.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Shambarov, V. The State and revolutions (Государство и революции). "Algoritm". Moscow, 2001 (in Russian)
54. Roberts, Glenn (2007). Commissar and Mullah: Soviet-Muslim Policy from 1917 to 1924. Boca Raton: Universal Publishers. p. 14. ISBN 978-1581123494.
55. 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.
56. Defence Journal. Ikram ul-Majeed Sehgal, 2006, Volume 9-10 Collected Issues 12(9)-12 (10) page 47.
57. 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 recognized the Republic of Kosova Archived April 20, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
58. "Rashid Dostum: The treacherous general". December 2001.
59. Laqueur, Walter (1997). Guerrilla Warfare: A Historical and Critical Study. Piscataway, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. p. 218. ISBN 978-0765804068.
60. Bianco (2015), p. 6.
61. Glaurdic, Josip (2011). The Hour of Europe: Western Powers and the Breakup of Yugoslavia. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 149. ISBN 978-0300166293.
62. Gilbert, Martin; Gott, Richard (1967). The Appeasers. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
63. Dwyer 2015, pp. 39, 40, 62.
64. Lidow 2016, pp. 116–130.
65. Beck, Theresa (2013). The Normality of Civil War: Armed Groups and Everyday Life in Angola. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag GmbH, Publishers. pp. 83–84. ISBN 978-3593397566.
66. 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.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
• Dwyer, Johnny (2015). American Warlord. A true story. New York City: Vintage Books.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
• Essen, Michael Fredholm von (2018). Muscovy's Soldiers. The Emergence of the Russian Army 1462–1689. Warwick: Helion & Company. ISBN 978-1912390106.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
• Lidow, Nicholai Hart (2016). Violent Order: Understanding Rebel Governance through Liberia's Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)