Talk:Sovereign Base Area

Comments

in a manner analogous to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Is this really so? - Montréalais

Sounds right to me. What's wrong with it? -- Tim Starling 01:08 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I understood that the naval base was merely leased to the United States from Cuba. I guess I don't understand how that's different from, say, an embassy being leased to a foreign government. I don't think you could argue that Ottawa is Swiss-cheesed with tiny little embassy-sized pockets of "foreign" territory. - Montréalais

My understanding is that embassies are part of the foreign state whilst in use. Canadian law would not apply in, say, the Saudi embassy. A famous British incident involved a police woman, Yvonne Fletcher being shot from the Libyan embassy in London. Noone was prosecuted, because the perpetrator was on Libyan soil and protected by diplomatic immunity jimfbleak 06:05 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, embassies are not under the foreign state's jurisdiction, although the host nation needs official permission to physically enter them. It was the Libyan diplomats' status as diplomats that meant they could not be arrested, not where they committed their crimes. On the other hand, the Sovereign Base Areas are British territory. I couldn't find the relevent text of the 1960 treaty, but the British law implementing the treaty, the Cyprus Act 1960, states "The Republic of Cyprus shall comprise the entirety of the Island of Cyprus with the exception of the two areas defined as mentioned in the following subsection," namely Akrotiri and Dhekelia, over which "nothing in the foregoing section shall affect Her Majesty’s sovereignty or jurisdiction over those areas" ([1]). They are thus unlike Guantanamo Bay, which is Cuban territory under US lease. 68.239.76.176 03:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are all misunderstanding the status of the Sovereign Base Areas. In the case of Guantanamo Bay, the nation of Cuba existed and then Guantanamo Bay was leased to the US. The same does not apply to Cyprus. In the case of Cyprus, the whole island was, prior to Independence, a UK colony. At Independence the Republic of Cyprus was created, excluding those areas of the island that were retained by the UK. What is now the SBAs were UK territory before the Republic was created. Essentially, the SBAs have never been "Cypriot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sink Fleet (talk • contribs) 02:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

---

Akrotiri, the famous Minoan archaological site on Santorini, buried by the volcanic explosion of Thira--- now redirects here, because a minor UK base on Cyprus is also named "Akrotiri." Perhaps a disambiguation page would be in order? Wetman 00:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Post Empire

The UK retained several militray bases throughout the Empire following decolonisation for a period of time eg Singapore, Simonstwon in South Africa etc? Were these sovereign bases? Astrotrain 20:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I miss information as to why th UK is in Cyprus and perhaps more importantly why it doesn't leave. If Turkey has to give back a part of Cyprus, why is the UK exempt?

The confusion arises because of a misunderstanding of sovereignty. The UK occupy the Sovereign Bases legally because they were established through the international Treaty of Establishment. Turkey occupies the north of Cyprus illegally following a military invasion in 1974 of the Repuclic of Cyprus. The Republic of Cyprus was established also by the international Treaty of Establishment. --Sink Fleet (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're debating this point (an activity seperate from editing this page), one argument is that the Turkish north was the result of an invasion of the Republic of Cyprus, while the SBAs were never part of independent Cyprus but holdovers from the British colony of Cyprus. And the Republic of Cyprus agreed to the SBAs in its treaty with Britain in 1960, while it never agreed to the invasion. 68.239.76.176 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Are the SBAs parts of BOTs?

The Sovereign Base Areas are described as one of BOTs in the article British overseas territories. Is the British Government classifying SBA as a special type of BOT? If it is true, I think it should be explained in both British overseas territories and Sovereign Base Areas. ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 14:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland

It is not appropriate to refer to the Treaty Ports as "Sovereign Base Areas" etc. That terminology was NEVER used to describe them when the UK controlled them. Referring to them in that way is a "Wiki-invention" even if they were bases etc. The practical silliness of calling them a "Sovereign Base Area" also arises because at the time the UK occupied them, the UK's sovereign was the sovereign for all of Ireland. Admittedly, the UK did not administer Ireland at the time - only the treaty ports but Ireland had a Governor General and the UK sovereign was the sovereign. Ireland only ceased to be a British dominion in 1949. This is silly use of terminology with no historic or academic pedigree. Basically just made up. The Treaty Ports were never referred to as "Sovereign Base Areas" during the period the UK occupied them. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the argument relating to sovereignty may be more nebulous than you assert. However, I agree that referring to the Treaty Ports as "Sovereign Base Areas" is inappropriate unless a suitable source can be provided for doing so. In fact, I rather suspect we have here a variant on the myth that embassies are "foreign territory". Besides anything else, if the port areas weren't part of the Irish state's jurisdiction, the original Article 3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann would mean that Acts of the Oireachtas didn't extend to the port areas; and I can see no Act passed in 1938 to extend that jurisdiction to the reacquired territory! Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

The term "Sovereign Base" is the official one in use, even on the military maps. The Irish treaty ports were never deemed such. They are under UK sovereignty (regardless of whethe there is a monarch or not) as that is the way they were set up. Perhaps we learned from the Irish model. Acorn897 (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result: Oppose merge Reading over the opposes and merge rationales, the issue here is whether or not they should be one article, or two or three separate article. From the looks of it, there is stronger reasoning for keeping both articles separate. SalopianJames' merge rationale included the idea of splitting them up, and I am going to do this in a few days, just in case anyone wants to overrule me. Right now, the result is this: Move this article to "Sovereign Base Area," split "Akrotiri and Dhekelia" into "West Sovereign Base Area," and "East Sovereign Base Area." This is due to the installations being separated, even if there is material which seems to state otherwise. Also, the Sovereign Base Area page treats these as separate installations, and there is enough material out there to create three independent articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Afternoon folks, I'd like to propose the articles Sovereign Base Areas and Akrotiri and Dhekelia be merged together. This is because there is a large amount of duplication between the articles given that the only SBAs that have ever existed are those in Cyprus, thus the explanation for them given in the SBA article could be nicely merged into the main one. Either existing article would be fine, as far as I can see, as the destination page (although I'd prefer the resulting article be the Sovereign Base Areas one, personally). In addition, two child articles, one on the West and one on the East SBA, could then be created, leaving the main article containing content general to both whereas specifics, such as geography, local settlements and borders, could then be included in the WSBA or ESBA articles. Suggestions are, as ever, most welcome! Thanks in advance, SalopianJames (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, the subject is about the type of territory designated "Sovereign Base Areas". Although these only presently exist on the Island of Cyprus, the article should be expanded into past bases with the designation which is the subject of the article. In my humble opinion the duplicated content talking about Cyprus should be removed, and the article should focus on the bases themselves, summarizing content from those articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, though, the Cyprus SBAs are the only ones that have ever been (and most likely ever will be), unless there are others not belonging to the United Kimgdom? SalopianJames (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, referring to the Cyprus SBAs as 'Akrotiri and Dhekelia' is somewhat misleading anyway, as they also include settlements such as Episkopi and Ay Nik Station, hence why they are referred to as the WSBA and ESBA by BFC. SalopianJames (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A quick search of the term Sovereign Base Area does make it appear that the only SBAs, so far, have been on the island of Cyprus. That being said, as they are independently Notable in their own right I do not see a sufficient reason to merge these articles at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Merge these are articles on the same subject; let's keep all the information in one place. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge As per buckshot.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge, redirecting here. If they're the only ones, there's no point having the other article. CMD (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Presumably there must be a whole legal definition behind these designations that would be relevant to any other SBAs (whether they exist or not), regarding issues like governance and jurisdiction (some of this appears to be in the A&D article). I think the SBA article article should explore such politics in a general sense. The A&D article can then link to that definition and concentrate more on the specific histories and use of these locations, without getting bogged down in the definition of an SBA. Admittedly this would be more important if there were more SBAs; as the ones on Cyprus are the only ones, it makes my oppose a bit weaker... Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, The fact that this is the only example of SBAs is in itself a reason for keeping the article. Acorn897 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk)
• Merge These are the only "Sovereign Base Areas" there ever have been or are ever likely to be - search the internet and paper libraries for as long as you like, but you will never find any other. There is no legal concept of a Sovereign Base Area - their legal status is British Overseas Territories (fair enough each BOT is different, and there are several unique/rare aspects of the SBAs, but they are still BOTs). It is like saying there should be an entry for "United Kingdom" separate from "Great Britain & Northern Ireland", because the fact there is only one UK means it must be an interesting & separate concept - it doesn't. Now that the ludicrously unsupported connection with the Irish Treaty Ports has been dropped from these entries, it is time to face the simple fact that the SBAs & "Akrotiri & Dhekelia" are exactly the same thing - anyone with anything that they think shows any real difference should produce it. Waldronfan (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC) By the way, this debate is the flip-side of the discussion on the Akrotiri-Dhekelia page about whether to rename that page to include SBA in the name - nothing seems to have come of that. If anyone wants the source for the fact that there is legally one entity, a single British Overseas Territory, called "the SBAs of A&D", then look at British Nationality Act 1981, as amended by British Overseas Territories Act 2002 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/contents - s50(1) says “ 'British overseas territory' means a territory mentioned in Schedule 6" and Sch6 has a paragraphed list which includes "The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (that is to say the areas mentioned in section 2(1) of the Cyprus Act 1960)". And if anyone can find any evidence anywhere of any use of "Sovereign Base Area" in any case other than Cyprus, then they need to let the world know. Waldronfan (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Merge preferably under the title "The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia". Malpascru (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Merge. We don't need two article on two aspects of the same thing. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Merge One article can cover what the two currently do without seeming cumbersome or feeling like two articles are needed, I found it weird that there were two when I was reading up on the subject Jasonfward (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A paragraph about the history is missing in this article. UK had, before WWII, sovereign base areas in Ireland for example (see Berehaven#History). That is this article can not be merged with "Akrotiri and Dhekelia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiff (talk • contribs) 08:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Merge I thought this zombie myth about the Irish Treaty Ports had been laid to rest long ago, but it seems the Berehaven article is still infected. In all the searching I have done on this I have never seen any trace of the Irish Treaty Ports ever being called "Sovereign Base Areas", except on Wikipedia - if anyone has any actual evidence that they ever were called that, then they need to produce it. There just is no general concept of a "Sovereign Base Area" - it was a one off name for the territory in Cyprus. By the way, it is used in the sense of a sovereign base-area - it is the broad area including the bases, but the current SBA article refers to the Areas as if they were just the bases (whereas the Akrotiri-Dhekelia article now correctly sets out that the Areas include the Cypriot-owned farmland and village outskirts around the actual bases). How do we bring this to a close?83.137.249.158 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is anything happening with this? The closer seems to have abandoned his own suggestion... SalopianJames (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I have just tried editing this page, to make it about what it says it is about - "Sovereign Base Areas", which are Areas, not Bases (there are several military bases contained within the SBAs, but the SBAs themselves spread much wider and are a British Overseas Territory, not just an overseas base of the British armed forces). I have done this as an alternative to what really should happen, which is that this page should be scrapped altogether, with anything that it contains that does not duplicate the Akrotiri and Dhekelia page being moved over to there. The point is that "Sovereign Base Area" just is not a generic term - there only ever has been one pair and only ever will be - it is just a label dreamed up in 1960 for the one-off arrangements in Cyprus. Having this as a separate page is like treating "United States" or "United Kingdom" as if they were separate generic terms which each happened to have just one example (USA and UK-GBNI) - there is just no point in it. The continued survival of this page is due to whichever Wikipedia editor originally suggested that the Irish Treaty Ports should somehow also be thought of as SBAs (even though the term was never used for them - at least this has now been dropped on Wikipedia), and then to people who assume there must be such a thing as a notable concept of a "Sovereign Base Area" just because the term is used (but in the plural) in one single solitary case of an unfortunately cumbersome name "the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus". Whether or not Kevin Rutherford is going to get around to splitting Akrotiri/Western SBA from Dhekelia/Eastern SBA (or leave them together), the issue is that this page is entirely bogus in suggesting that there is any general concept of an SBA outside of the pair that form one British Overseas Territory on the island of Cyprus. Can we just agree to scrap this page? Waldronfan (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this page is redundant and deserves to be flushed once and for all. --Lubiesque (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)