This article was copy edited by BDD, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 4 May 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The 'US Legal' website you linked is a generalist commercial website for US law, offering advice to consumers, rather than the sort of peer-reviewed academic source we'd need to make general assertions regarding any 'rights' under international law for governments-in-exile. The page you link is nothing but a confusingly-worded attempt at a definition. It is clearly not a reliable source for the content you added. None of the remaining sources were of any relevance whatsoever, given that they merely documented that certain governments-in-exile (self-described or otherwise), were doing certain things - not that international law afforded such actions any specific legitimacy etc. They cannot be cited for assertions about international law.
Frankly, I think that any attempt to create a section on the supposed 'rights' of governments-in-exile in general is inherently flawed. No such generalist 'rights' can possibly exist, given that more or less anyone can call themselves a 'government-in-exile'. In as much as a specific body acquires 'rights', it will do so as a result of specific recognition, by legitimate sovereign states, or by intergovernmental organisations, for that particular body. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to see your points.I wish to know how your arrived that US Law is just commercial website. For the single fact that government-in-exile means government-in-exile, it's not always the case they are recognised by any international law. wɔːr (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re commercial website, see [1] and [2]. As for your comment about recognition, that is precisely why general 'rights' for bodies described as 'governments-in-exile' cannot exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I am amazed at your level of research. This means the section have to be generally reformed avoiding the use of assertions of international law or whatsoever like "According to international law..." to qualify government-in-exile. Maybe we have to use Historically..." or "According to historical events..." to qualify whatever we are going to write. Start up something or should I? wɔːr (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]