` :A quick response to TDL post. :``CI are a very sui generis case which is intended to emulate the functions of a state at the subnational level without full sovereignty from their colonial power.``. As Ladril said above this is not true. I would add that the opposite formulation is more correct - ``CI is a special case, intended to emulate the functions of a state at international level, without breaking the citizenship constitutional link to their former colonial power``. It seems, that exactly this fact is causing us trouble here for finding agreement- even NZ recognizes CI/Niue sovereignty and independence, in international aspect. In bilateral, NZ-CI/Niue, they could not, because of the citizenship constitutional link. :``shouldn't assume ALL of the CI's claimed diplomatic relations are genuine, full fledged relationships, without secondary sources`` - there are secondary sources (the various analysis papers and lists), but I would assume that this is not sufficiently convincing for you. :``why are the CI more aware than the US foreign affairs department? `` - I said that US ambassador to CI is more aware of CI than the US department of the geographer (excuse me if this is the same as foreign affairs department - I don't know who belongs where). I don't claim that ``US is unaware`` - I claim that between US ambassador to CI and some list on US website we should put more weight on the ambassador quote. :``partially recognized states put so much effort into establishing foreign relationships``, ``If Somaliland posted a note ...`` and proposals to list CI/Niue in ``other states``. CI/Niue have nothing in common with Abkhazia/South Ossetia/Transinistria/Nagorno Karabkah/Somaliland/Taiwan/SADR/TRNC/Kosovo/Palestine (the ``other states``). The ``other states`` compete for recogntion with regular UN members. Their territory is claimed by regular UN members. They stage wars-for-independence/civil wars/whatever wars/armed conflicts with regular UN members. In contrast nobody claims CI/Niue. Even the former administring power, the NZ, recognizes their international sovereignity and independence. The UN has removed them form the list of non-self governing territories long ago (1965/1974 - as ``associated state of NZ``), but later, after their gradual evolution, in 1992/1994 they get recognition as independent sovereign states, and the UN now classifies them as ``non-member states`` (without any administring power). This has nothing in common with the ``other states``. Of them, only PLO/Palestine gets UN recognition, but only as ``representative of the palestinian people``, and some UN members the recognize PLO/State of Palestine as sovereign 'government-in-exile' (or similar, having in mind the partially not-in-exile trough the PNA). The CI/Niue are entierly independent, unrestricted by any administring power (they could denounce the citizenship link with NZ/change their constitutions - if they decide so - they don't require NZ approval for this). :``their statuses as sovereign states is certainly disputed`` - No, it is disputed only here, by us - wikipedia users. We have sources showing CI/Niue sovereinity dispute only by JP/KR. We have sources showing NZ, UN, and others recognizing, not disputing - here I speak about explicit statements by MFAs and the like. Then, of course, there are some lists on foreign websites that list CI/Niue under one section or another, in contradiction to the previous group of sources. I can't understand, if it was soooooo disputed, why don't we have any statements by the disputing states like ``We, XXXX, do not recognize the independence of CI/Niue. We treat them as part of NZ``. If Japan can clearly indicate their non-recognition, and even give the reasons for it (citizenship), I would expect that other states that some users here claim to not recognize CI/Niue would be equaly straigt about that.   `