This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Allied-occupied Germany#French Zone of Occupation|French Zone of Occupation]] The anchor (#French Zone of Occupation) has been deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Hmmm, it takes half an hour or so to drive across Luxembourg as I recall, whereas somewhere like Monaco you can walk all over. Luxembourg is big enough to appear as a patch rather than a dot on a reasonably-scaled map of Europe (a very unscientific way of thinking about it I know). I'd say Luxembourg is a good cut-off: if you're that size or bigger you're not a microstate. However, not all microstates are the same: Andorra is the biggest on the present list at about one fifth of the size of Luxembourg, and is very much bigger than the likes of Monaco and Vatican City. 86.136.90.24106:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've often wondered what the cut-off point should be myself. I think it's a little strange to classify Luxembourg as a 'proper' state while discounting Malta or Iceland. A few criteria I've considered would be a population below 100,000; sovereignty over their own defence (even Malta and Luxembourg have symbolic militaries, Iceland has disbanded its military, but is still a NATO member) -to the best of my knowledge Andorra, San Marino, the Holy See and Monaco all rely on France, Spain and Italy for their military defence); and a 'realistic' possibility of joining the EU or NATO if they desired (obviously this would limit the definition to European microstates). Any of these definitions would, even though fairly arbitrary, set a more common-sense definition of the term, as most people apply it. --Maverick XIII08:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would be inclined to include Luxembourg and make that the large-end cut-off point. It does share certain characteristics with the microstates as well as the larger states. Iceland is simply too large to be a microstate, though, even if its quite small in terms of population. matt9148601:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robynthehode has tried to delete a question regarding Luxembourg, which is said to share some of the characteristics of the four microstates identified, namely Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino and Monaco.[1][2] The question was that if Luxembourg got these characteristics, what about Malta, Iceland, Cyprus or Montenegro? 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of these special economic policies, the microstates have not joined the European Union but have special agreements with it" How does not joining the EU help the microstates??
They are not subjected to most of the EU policies. Besides, their power in the EU would be minimal. For example, Monaco has no personal taxes. The Vatican is not democratic. Andorra operates with low tariffs. Tax havens,...
I find it amusing that the intro says "no microstate is likely to ever join the EU", and then in the list of microstates, it includes a current EU member (Malta).
Kalingrad is not a microstate, it is an integral part of the largest country in wht world, it just happens to be detached from the rest of the country--Captdoc21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is still considered to be part of Serbia even though they don't have any control over it these days. Furthermore it's about four times the size of Luxembourg. 86.136.90.24106:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the map showing Kosovo as separate from Serbia?? This is very much disputed and this article should not take it upon itself to take positions in the debate. A vast majority of the world still doesn't recognize Kosovo as independent. This map needs to be altered. --24.150.77.3 (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most western europe countries consider it a country, and so do the US, canada, and Australia who's citizens come here most often. Also, considering Serbia doesn't have anything to say about Kosovo anymore, it is independent, and the other countries are just idiotic for not recognising it. Mijzelffan (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This area could be developed somewhat.
Given the discussion over on the Danzig/Gdansk page I am putting both names in, but in this context the former name is the correct one.
Jackiespeel18:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Berwick-upon-Tweed was never independent, instead it frequently changed hands between soveriegn states. For this reason I have removed it.
Sorry, the above was me, I didn't know how to add my username--Captdoc10:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the Republic of Malta (not the same entity as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta) is no longer listed on this page. Considering that it is indeed smaller than some of the other entities listed on this page, there is no good reason for it not to be included. Rhialto11:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the determining factor is more population than size. Malta's population -- 400,000 people or so -- is an order of magnitude greater than most of the microstates. It would fall into the larger category of "small states" that would also include Cyprus, Luxembourg, and Iceland (the latter not being small physically but having a relatively tiny population.) --Jfruh (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you're right, whoever removed it did so incorrectly. microstate refers to size, nothing else. malta is no where near any limit that could be given. malta(316) is smaller than an independent state: andorra(468); two dependencies: isle of man(572) and faroe islands(1,399); and both of the next two largest states that people tend to argue over: luxembourg(2,586) and cyprus(9,250)
An anonymous commentator above says "microstate refers to size, nothing else." Says who? It's population that creates economic and political power, which is why the five real microstates (Vatican, Andorra, San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein) have special economic and political relations with a larger neighbor or neighbors. Malta (like other "small states" such as Montenegro, Cyprus, and Iceland -- the latter being quite large physically but with a population of just over 300,000) deals with other nations more as equals.
In terms of land area, there really isn't a firm cutoff between microstates and regular sized states. But there is a definite jump in terms of population: Monaco's population, 35,000, is an order of magnitude less than Iceland's at 305,000. --Jfruh (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you've got against Malta is that too many people live there?
So far as I can tell, it's treated as a microstate academically. It's included in the book "Secrets of the Seven Smallest States in Europe". Of course, Luxembourg is as well, and there seems to be plenty of debate on their inclusion. matt9148601:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Malta is a small state, not a microstate. The other five are anomalies of history, while Malta's geography as an island is what limits its size. Besides, as pointed out above, its population is a full order of magnitude larger than the microstates, making it comparable to Cyprus, Iceland, Montenegro or Luxembourg. Also unlike the microstates, it is also above the apparent size threshold for consideration for membership in the EU (which it joined in 2004). I think by including Malta in the list, the article misses out on the essence of what makes these microstates unique. The microstates all question what the true definition of a state should be. They exist more like personal property that is not subject to the sovereignty of another state. Malta has its own unique culture, military, currency (for now) and (sort of) language. None of the microstates ever truly had many of the characteristics of countries, despite their international recognition as independent states. They are unique from Malta and other small states in many regards and when Malta is included in the list, that uniqueness is blurred. Alcuin21:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why is Malta still on this page? It's a full member of the EU. It's larger in population than Iceland, nearly the population of Montenegro and Luxembourg, and unlike Montenegro and Luxembourg it's a logical grouping of islands, not a remnant of border fights between empires. It's about the same area as several other island nations.
How can five things all be "unique survivors"? I suggest changing this to "the only survivors", "unusual survivors" or "rare survivors" as appropriate. - Trezatium15:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the whole sentence ("These states are unique survivors of earlier times in European history") is quite meaningless. I suggest cutting it out. Trezatium18:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if Åland is to be included, then we don't have much of a choice than to include luxembourg and cyprus. and there wouldn't be a good reason for keeping out montenegro, as it's only a tiny bit larger than Åland. if there are persons who argue luxembourg is not small enough, what do we do about cyprus, montenegro and aland? is it not reasonable to ask that a "microstate" be at least smaller than 10,000km2?
Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey as (British) Crown dependencies
OK, we now have a Dependencies section in which are listed "small autonomous territories, which are under the sovereignty of another state or monarch" - I still think this is wrong, a Crown dependency is not autonomous of the British government it is independent of the British Government having its own legislative, judiciary and executive. The confusion I think comes from the executive branch of government.
The executive branch for the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey is the Duke of Normandy and the executive branch for the Isle of Man is the Lord of Mann, both the Duke of Normandy and Lord of Mann have their own Privy councils independent of any Privy council related to the British monarchy. Now just because the holder of the titles Duke of Normandy and the Lord of Mann is also the British monarch does not mean that a Crown dependency is governed by the British monarch. Remember it was the Duke of Normandy that seized the English crown by force of arms in 1066. --Thefrood14:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable source cited in the article which provides that microstates have to be sovereign states. Quite the contrary Bremen has been referred to as a microstate within Germany's context (which Robynthehode has tried to "conceal" from this article[3][4]). Whereas globally speaking there are references to Bermuda, Guam and so on as microstates. There is no reason on hand not to include dependent territories, like Gibraltar mentioned below. 203.145.94.36 (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The islands relate directly to the person that is also the British monarch. Queen Elisabeth II is, for example, also head of state in Australia, which nevertheless qualifies as a independant state without doubt. So the link to the British monarch does not contradict independance status in my view. For example, if Great Britain should abolish monarchy, the three islands would probably still remain to be "dependencies" of Elisabeth II (or her successor), while having lost much of their link to the remaining state of Great Britain. If two of the three entities would also abolish monarchy, Elisbeth II or her successor Charles or William could remain to be head of state in the last entitiy, with the title of Duke of Normandy or Lord of Mann (as the case might be. In that situation, there would be little doubt about sovereignity. So why doubt it now? --Meerwind7
"Sealand" was annexed by the UK in the 1980's when the UK extended its territorial waters to include the terriotry. "Sealand" is part of Britain. YourPTR! (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Republic of Ragusa should not be listed here. There were in the past centuries plenty of small states, especially in Germany and Italy, and none of them is listed here. After the fall of the Holy Roman Empire in 1808, these small states could not even be considered part of the Holy Roman Empire.
Laurusnobilis (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did two Google Books searches for "micro-state/microstate" and "mini-state/ministate" ([5], [6]), using the names of the first five states listed in the Microstate article. The results showed that the difference in frequency between these two sets of terms is not significant (187 to 146), according to Wikipedia's naming conventions (WP:UE, at least). Thus, I thought it proper to give them equal billing in the first sentence. SamEV (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cradel, an avid supporter of Kosovo independence, has made it a point to create a map for this article that shows Kosovo as separate from Serbia. This is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia's article on Kosovo which aknowledges that the issues is still highly contested and debated, and that Wikipedia will not make the decision whether to take one side over the other. A vast majority of the world does NOT recognize Kosovo as independent so Cradel is clearly violating Wikipedia's rules. --24.150.77.3 (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless... Then we have to discuss Ossetia, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and all of those complicated situations... When Kosovo enters all world maps, or at least the majority, we can talk about adding a dashed border. --GOD OF JUSTICE18:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2/3 of the world sees Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia. It doesn't come even close to the independence that all other states mentioned have (including UN membership - with Kosovo probably never becoming fully recognized as a country)... If it's a competition, more states see Kosovo as a Province. --GOD OF JUSTICE01:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There you go: Kosovo is recognized by one third of all independent nations; Abkhazia, S Ossetia, and Transdniestria are not. Since that large a fraction of the world's countries is notable, some way to depict that amount of recognition should be found. A dashed line seems a quite sensible compromise to me.
So, I either share your POV, or else you're against me? ;)
Yes, Kosovo is recognized by more countries than S.O. and A., but not recognized by ALL countries, like the states mentioned in this article. If you add Kosovo, that opens the question of "where's the line"... if you understand what I mean. What's the "cut-off" number, which countries are "important enough", etc. And that is an endless discussion. Right now, only a minority of UN states recognize Kosovo as independent. Even if a majority did, it would still be open for discussion. Now is not the time to add in Kosovo. --GOD OF JUSTICE02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mention the word "edit war"? What are you trying to say with that? If this is your attempt at confusing readers who look at the discussion, I can't say you're working in good faith. One third is notable, but it doesn't make Kosovo an internationally recognized state, such as the ones on the list. --GOD OF JUSTICE06:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether you are trying to confuse readers. Because I never said you spoke of edit war; it is clear that I was the one who called your choice to turn down a possible compromise as being (in effect) a choice for edit war. I did based on the very evidence before me: you're battling a certain Cradel, each changing the other's preferred map. So accusing me of trying to sow confusion smells of red herring.
The second, and I hope last point I'll have to make, is that it is precisely because I know that Kosovo is not as fully recognized as the other microstates that I proposed that a middle ground between Cradel's and your map would be one wherein Kosovo's boundaries are dashed. Good day. SamEV (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, just because it takes 30mins to cross Luxembourg it doesn't mean it is not a microstate. I can assure you - it takes longer to cross Malta than Luxembourg..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.140.221 (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Akrotiri, Dhekelia, and Gibraltar are possessions of the UKoGBaNI. They are not microstates because they are not states. Man, Jersey, and Guernsey are independent states in personal union with the British Crown. Lumping them both under the category "Dependencies" is not accurate. Randall Bart Talk 22:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Man, Guernsey and Jersey are not independent. They have internal self-government, but their foreign affairs are run by the UK government. Also, the UK Home Secretary, as a minister to the Crown, has the right to intervene in the affairs of the islands. While Gibraltar's position is historically and constitutionally different, in practice it is much the same. The sovereign bases in Cyprus are in no sense comparable. They enjoy no self-government whatever and are most nearly comparable to Guantanamo Bay. Escoville (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads pretty much like original research from the firt line to the last. Based on what are these six states in particular singled out as microstates? Malta's population is much larger than Iceland's, so I guess it's not population at any rate. Regardless of what it is, it's obvious that it's not sourced. At the moment, all this article represents is some Wikipedia user's opinions about which states are defined as "European microstates", and that is neither interesting nor relevant. Unless some good sources can be found for this artcile, it should be nominated for AfD as there is nothing to suggest it's noteworthy, relevant or even correct.JdeJ (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some of the users who voted keep in the AfD-discussion would care to address this point. In the discussion, it was claimed that there are a lot of such sources available, although none was presented that would define these six states as the European microstates. The article remains the personal opinion of some user.JdeJ (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malta actually mentions this in the opening sentence. The only logic for it being considered a microstate seems to be the fact it's so mentioned on this article! I agree that both mis-uses of the term should be put right unless a definitive source officially listing Malta as a microstate is found. Pietru (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malta is a microstate. All states smaller than 1000 km2 are micro. It's about surface, not population. Look, Monaco is the most densily populated state in the world (!!!) but it's still a microstate. And yes, I would also want to see some sources for the info in this article. But I searched the web myself and, except for Wikipedia, I haven't found anything! --93.122.133.83 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the section about the Vevcani municipality, since its independence appears to be no more than a joke. Unlike the other entities mentioned in the article, there doesn't seem to be any serious claim to its being a state or state-like entity. --Levin (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that author abandoned this article so I guess we should rewrite it ourself. I think because there is no clear definition or list of microstates it will be good to put Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Vatican as 5 undisputed microstates because they meet all possible criteria (population, area, special relationship with neighbors) and make section about proposed microstates where put Malta, Iceland, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Montenegro and discuss why they can be considered as microstates and why not. Please comment what you think about this idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the overlooked reasons for the inclusion of Luxembourg (but not Cyprus) as a microstate in English-language sources is size, as measured prior to the late 1970s. The United States, Great Britain, Ireland, and Canada all used the imperial system of measurement far longer than most of the rest of the world, (until the late 1970s at the very least), and Luxembourg is 999 square miles. If a figure of 1,000 square miles was established as the cutoff for a microstate, Luxembourg would qualify, as would Malta; Iceland, Cyprus, and Montenegro would not, as their area exceeds the 1,000 square mile figure. Consider that tables and charts of the 1960s and 1970s listed countries by size in thousands of square miles, with special notation used to indicate those of less than 1,000 square miles; this would be justification to list Luxembourg with the smaller states. Horologium(talk)04:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputing the status of Liechtenstein as 'the sole remaining polity of the Holy Roman Empire'.
Can't the same description be applied to Luxemborg, which was a grand duchy within the Holy Roman Empire? A duchy must be a part of a kingdom or empire; I think that Luxemborg was held to the Holy Roman Emperors, but others may be able to correct me. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Luxembourg is not considered the case, as within the German Confederation (i.e. 19th century successor of HRE as considered today) it was held by the Dutch monarch (this situation lasted until 1890, after German unification), and was therefore excluded from German unification as a foreign holding. Liechtenstein remained for a different reason, because of its location as non-bordered to the entities that have accepted the union. --Phanthanhtom (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Free and Hanseatic cities of Bremen and Hamburg (mow Federal states within Germany) were also polities of the HRE. Luxembourg was taken away from that as a Duchy by the French in 1793. It was restored as a Grand Duchy within both the German Confederation and the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1814 as the successor (in a dynastic sense) to the Principality of Nassau-Orange which was lost to the Dutch King in that year. So whether the present Grand Duchy which became a sovereign state only in 1839 can be considered a former polity of the HRE is at least debatable. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Holy See is a unique sovereign entity under international law distinct from Vatican City with the pope as the head of both"
"Unlike the Holy See, which is sovereign over the Vatican City, the Order has no territory."
Which is it? Is the Holy see distinct or is it the sovereign? The first is quoted from the Vatican city section and the second from Sovereign Military Order of Malta section. They conflict. Is the Holy See landless as first suggested or is it not?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Holy See (which is occupied by the Pope) is in charge of the State of the Vatican City. Much like the British Crown is sovereign over the UK of Greatbritain and Northern Ireland, so there's no real distinction. The Pope is the sovereign of the State of the Vatican City in his capacity as the one seated on the Holy See. The fact that ambassadors are accredited by the Holy See is no different from the fact that ambassadors to other countries are accredited to the sovereigns or heads of state of other nations. (to the Court of St. James for instance, or to the King of the Netherlands). The Holy See is simply the power that rules the State of The Vatican City. And the Pope (occupying that See)is the Sovereign of that State. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no distinction between the Crown of the UK and the UK in international Law. While Elizabeth exists as the Crown of Multiple States there is no distinction between the crowns and their states. The Vatican and the Holy See are either distinct or they are not.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The State and its sovereign or it's Head of State are two different things, even if International Law doesn't make a distinguishment between them. The Kingdom of Belgium is another thing than the King of the Belgians or even the People of Belgium. The Holy See (and it's temporary occupant) holds sovereignty over the State of the Vatican City. The Holy See is of course more that that as it also is the leading body of the worldwide RC Church. But it is still also the sovereign power over that particular state. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's sovereignty over the Vatican is clear. However the sovereignty of the Vatican City and the Sovereignty of the Holy See are separate and distinct. What is even more puzzling however is the inclusion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta which is distinctly not a state. It seems someone may be mistaking sovereignty with statehood.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the Russian-sponsored microstates be mentioned here too, of course with the caveat that almost nobody else recognises them? Or are they not micro enough? I mean Transdnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh. 129.67.116.76 (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate article on "de facto" states, which seems like a more appropriate place to discuss these entities. In one of the sources referenced here ("Microstates as Modern Protected States: Towards a New Definition of Micro-statehood), it is argued that while de facto states do indeed display certain similarities to microstates, their key unique feature is the lack of international recognition and all its political and economic consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehlirian (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on European microstates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on European ministates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I wonder what is the inclusion criteria for European microstates? Why is Malta considered a European microstate? Its population (525,285) is 7-16 times more than the other five European microstates. Malta also has a bigger population than Iceland (366,425) and it is no too far behind Luxembourg (632,275) and Montenegro (621,718) either. Why wouldn't Iceland, Luxembourg, and Montenegro be classified as European microstates too? 2001:8003:9008:1301:D986:7DE0:BBC7:6B1A (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its not clear why this happened but it has become common. I think the land area of those large states makes people less comfortable describing them as microstates. For example, Iceland has more land then Hungary. Montekarloh (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
