View source for Associated state

{{short description|Minor partner in a formal, free relationship with a typically larger state}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2018}}
{{Basic Forms of government}}
An '''associated state''' is the minor partner or [[dependent territory]] in a formal, free [[International relations|relationship]] between a [[Polity|political territory]] (some of them dependent [[State (polity)|states]], most of them fully [[Sovereignty|sovereign]]) and a major party—usually a larger state.

The details of such '''free association''' are contained in [[United Nations General Assembly]] [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)|Resolution 1541 (XV)]] Principle VI,<ref name="resolution 1541 (XV)">''See'': the [[United Nations General Assembly|General Assembly]] of the [[United Nations]] approved [http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf resolution 1541 (XV)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120121100604/http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf |date=21 January 2012 }} (pages: 509–510) defining free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence</ref> a [[Compact of Free Association]] or [[West Indies Associated States|Associated Statehood Act]] and are specific to the countries involved. In the case of the [[Cook Islands]] and [[Niue]], the details of their free association arrangement are contained in several documents, such as their respective constitutions, the 1983 Exchange of Letters between the governments of [[New Zealand]] and the Cook Islands, and the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration. Free associated states can be described as [[Sovereign state|independent]] or not, but free association is not a qualification of an entity's statehood or status as a subject of [[international law]].

Informally it can be considered more widely: from a [[Postcolonialism|post-colonial]] form of amical protection, or [[protectorate]], to a [[Asymmetric federalism|confederation of unequal members]] when the lesser partners delegate to the major one (often the former colonial power) some authority normally exclusively retained by a sovereign state, usually in such fields as defence and foreign relations, while often enjoying favourable economic terms such as [[market access]].

==Origin of the concept==
The concept of associated state was originally used to refer to arrangements under which Western powers afforded a (sometimes very limited) degree of self-government to some of their colonial possessions after the end of [[World War II]]. Soon after the conclusion of the war, the French colonial territories of [[State of Vietnam|Vietnam]], [[French protectorate of Cambodia|Cambodia]], and [[French protectorate of Laos|Laos]] were designated as 'associated states' within the newly created [[French Union]]. The arrangement afforded these countries a limited degree of internal and external sovereignty (for example, they were allowed to enter into diplomatic relations with a small number of countries), but for the most part reserved for France effective control over foreign relations, as well as military, judicial, administrative, and economic activities.<ref name="auto">{{cite book|last=Igarashi |first=Masahiro |date=2002 |title=Associated Statehood in International Law |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1peIxEyy1o0C&q=associated+statehood+in+international+law|location=The Hague, Netherlands |publisher=Kluwer Law International |page=24 |isbn=90-411-1710-5}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://indochine.uqam.ca/en/historical-dictionary/77-associated-states-of-indochina.html|title=UQAM &#124; Guerre d'Indochine &#124; ASSOCIATED STATES OF INDOCHINA|website=indochine.uqam.ca}}</ref> According to some French jurists, the concept of associated state under the [[French Constitution of 27 October 1946|1946 French constitution]] automatically extended to the territories of [[French protectorate in Morocco|Morocco]] and [[French protectorate of Tunisia|Tunisia]], which up until then had been protectorates of France. However, unlike their counterparts in Southeast Asia, neither Morocco nor Tunisia became part of the French Union.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=The United States and Moroccan International Status, 1943-1956: A Contributory Factor in Morocco's Reassertion of Independence from France|author=Rivlin, Benjamin|year=1982|journal=The International Journal of African Historical Studies|volume=15|issue=1|pages=64–82|doi=10.2307/218449|jstor=218449}}</ref> The associated state concept as applied to former French colonial possessions has been described as 'neo-colonial' as it did not afford them real internal or external sovereignty.<ref name="auto" /> All of the aforementioned associated states eventually became fully independent states.

[[Puerto Rico]] has been a [[dependent territory]] of the [[United States]] since the [[Spanish–American War]]. In the Spanish-language version of its current (1952) [[Constitution of Puerto Rico|constitution]] it is officially named {{lang|es|Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico}}, which translates to "Free Associated State of Puerto Rico." It exercises substantial internal self-government similar to [[U.S. state|U.S. states]], and is under the sovereignty of the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]]. Unlike the [[Marshall Islands]], [[Federated States of Micronesia|Micronesia]], and [[Palau]], Puerto Rico is not considered to be an associated state under U.S. domestic law, with the English-language Puerto Rican constitution referring to it as a 'commonwealth.' The official Spanish name of Puerto Rico can lead observers to believe that its political status is equivalent to that of the associated states of the Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Niue, and Palau. However, unlike these polities, Puerto Rico is not considered a state under international law and scholars usually do not regard it as an associated state similar to the others.

When New Zealand offered an associated status to the Cook Islands, they involved the [[United Nations]] and included in the agreement the possibility of future independence. These considerations became relevant in later [[Special Committee on Decolonization|Special Committee on Decolonisation]] debates on the [[West Indies Associated States]].<ref name="Lal2006">{{cite book |author1=Brij V Lal |title=British Documents on the End of Empire Project Series B Volume 10: Fiji |date=22 September 2006 |publisher=University of London: Institute of Commonwealth Studies |page=308 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z2R3Nk3jUlsC |chapter='Pacific Island talks': Commonwealth Office notes on four-power talks in Washington |isbn=9780112905899 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z2R3Nk3jUlsC&pg=PA297}}</ref>

==States currently in a formal association==
The Cook Islands and Niue have the status of "self-government in free association".<ref name="mfai">[http://www.mfai.gov.ck/attachments/068_WELLINGTON-1129712-v1-CookIslands%20%20Constitutional%20Status%20and%20International%20Personality%20%20informationpaper.pdf Cook Islands: Constitutional Status and International Personality, New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, May 2005] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000423/http://www.mfai.gov.ck/attachments/068_WELLINGTON-1129712-v1-CookIslands%20%20Constitutional%20Status%20and%20International%20Personality%20%20informationpaper.pdf |date=4 March 2016 }}</ref> New Zealand cannot legislate for them,<ref name="indep">[http://www.parliament.gov.ck/Constitution.pdf Cook Islands Constitution] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924064410/http://www.parliament.gov.ck/Constitution.pdf |date=24 September 2015 }} "Except as provided by Act of the Parliament of the Cook Islands, no Act, and no provision of any Act, of the Parliament of New Zealand passed after the commencement of this Article shall extend or be deemed to extend to the Cook Islands as part of the law of the Cook Islands."</ref><ref name="abstract">[http://www.niue.de/index.php?did=niueabstracts.pdf Niue Abstracts Part 1 A (General Information); page 18] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160121015618/http://www.niue.de/index.php?did=niueabstracts.pdf |date=21 January 2016 }} "The New Zealand Parliament has no power to make laws in respect of Niue on any matter, except with the express request and consent of the Niue Government."</ref> and in some situations they are considered [[sovereign state]]s.<ref>See [https://books.google.com/books?id=1peIxEyy1o0C&dq=cook+islands+under+international+law&pg=PA259 Court various statements, page 262–264]</ref> In foreign relations, both interact as sovereign states,<ref name="nonUN"/><ref name="JCD">{{Cite web|url=http://www.cook-islands.org/files/nz-cki.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130527152705/http://www.cook-islands.org/files/nz-cki.pdf|url-status=dead|title=JOINT CENTENARY DECLARATION of the Principles of the Relationship between the Cook Islands and New Zealand, 6 April 2001|archive-date=27 May 2013}}</ref> and they have been allowed to sign on as a state to United Nations treaties and bodies.<ref name="nonUN">[http://legal.un.org/repertory/art102/english/rep_supp8_vol6-art102_e_advance.pdf Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs Supplement No. 8; page 10] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019223055/http://legal.un.org/repertory/art102/english/rep_supp8_vol6-art102_e_advance.pdf |date=19 October 2013 }} Cook Islands since 1992, and Niue since 1994.</ref><ref>[http://untreaty.un.org/ola-internet/Assistance/Summary.htm UN Office of Legal Affairs] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110728142815/http://untreaty.un.org/ola-internet/Assistance/Summary.htm |date=28 July 2011 }} Page 23, number 86 "...the question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative..."</ref> Neither has decided to join the UN, as New Zealand has expressed a view that such a move would lead to their loss of right to automatic acquisition of [[New Zealand nationality law|New Zealand citizenship]].<ref name="mfai"/>{{refn|1=[http://www.cookislands.de/index.php?did=cookisstatus.pdf The Cook Islands' unique constitutional and international status, page 9] Cook Islands and Niue do not have citizenship on their own and the [[Cook Islanders]] and [[Niue]]ans have [[New Zealand nationality law|New Zealand citizenship]].}} However, New Zealand has never formally opposed such application, nor has it argued that either country would not be within its sovereign right to do so. Both Niue and the Cook Islands have established their own nationality and immigration regimes.<ref>[http://www.upf.pf/IMG/pdf/12-RJP15-Pacific-Constitutions.pdf Pacific Constitutions Overview, p.7] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120305064608/http://www.upf.pf/IMG/pdf/12-RJP15-Pacific-Constitutions.pdf |date=5 March 2012 }} – Niue Entry, Residence and Departure Act 1985.</ref>

The Federated States of Micronesia (since 1986), the Marshall Islands (since 1986), and Palau (since 1994) are associated with the United States under what is known as the [[Compact of Free Association]], giving the states international sovereignty and ultimate control over their territory. However, the governments of those areas have agreed to allow the United States to provide defense; the U.S. federal government provides funding grants and access to U.S. social services for citizens of these areas. The United States benefits from its ability to use the islands as strategic military bases.{{Cn|date=May 2024}}

{| class="wikitable"
!width="160px"| Associated state {{NoteTag|Arranged by date of free association.}}
!class="unsortable" width="120px"|Associated with
!class="unsortable" width="120px"|Associated since
!class="unsortable"|Level of association
!class="unsortable"|International status
|-
| [[Cook Islands]]
|rowspan=2|[[New Zealand]]
| 4 August 1965
|rowspan=2|New Zealand acts on behalf of the Cook Islands and Niue in foreign affairs and defence issues, but only when requested so by their respective local governments and with their [[advice and consent]].<ref>{{cite web|title=The Cook Islands at the CIA's page|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/cook-islands/|publisher=CIA|access-date=2010-07-15|author=CIA|date=15 July 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964|url=http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1964/0069/latest/whole.html|publisher=New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office|access-date=2015-08-21|author=Government of New Zealand}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Cook Islands Constitution Commencement Order 1965|url=http://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1965/0128/latest/whole.html|publisher=New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office|access-date=2015-08-21|author=Government of New Zealand}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Niue at the CIA's page|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/niue/|publisher=CIA|access-date=2010-07-15|author=CIA|date=15 July 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Niue Constitution Act 1974|url=http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1974/0042/latest/whole.html|publisher=New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office|access-date=2015-08-21|author=Government of New Zealand}}</ref>
|rowspan=2|Not a [[Member states of the United Nations|UN member state]].<br>Independence in foreign relations recognised by the UN
|-
| [[Niue]]
| 19 October 1974
|-
| [[Marshall Islands]]
| rowspan=3|[[United States]]
| 21 October 1986
| rowspan=3| The United States provides defence, funding grants, and access to U.S. social services for citizens of these areas under the [[Compact of Free Association]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Marshall Islands at the CIA's page|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/marshall-islands/|publisher=CIA|access-date=2010-07-15|author=CIA|date=15 July 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=FSM at the CIA's page|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/micronesia-federated-states-of/|publisher=CIA|access-date=2010-07-15|author=CIA|date=15 July 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Palau at the CIA's page|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/palau/|publisher=CIA|access-date=2010-07-15|author=CIA|date=15 July 2010}}</ref>
|rowspan=3| UN member state
|-
| [[Federated States of Micronesia]]
| 3 November 1986
|-
| [[Palau]]
| 1 October 1994
|}

==Former associated states==
A formal association existed under the West Indies Act 1967 between the [[United Kingdom]] and the six [[West Indies Associated States]]. These were former British colonies in the [[Caribbean]]: [[Antigua and Barbuda|Antigua]] (1967–1981), [[Dominica]] (1967–1978), [[Grenada]] (1967–1974), [[Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla]] (1967–1983), [[Saint Lucia]] (1967–1979), and [[Saint Vincent and the Grenadines|Saint Vincent]] (1969–1979). Under this arrangement, each state had internal self-government, but the UK retained responsibility for foreign relations and defence.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Associated Statehood: A New Form of Decolonisation|author=Broderick, Margaret|year=1968|journal=The International and Comparative Law Quarterly|volume=17|issue=2|pages=368–403|jstor = 757111|doi = 10.1093/iclqaj/17.2.368}}</ref> The United Nations never determined whether these associated states had achieved a full measure of self-government within the meaning of the [[Charter of the United Nations|United Nations Charter]] and General Assembly resolutions. Within a few years after the status of associated state was created, all six of the former associated states requested and were granted full independence, except for [[Anguilla]] within the former St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla union, which separated from the associated state before independence and became a British dependent territory on its own.{{Cn|date=May 2024}}

Shortly before the [[dissolution of the Soviet Union]] in 1991, the [[Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic|Tatar ASSR]] unilaterally seceded from the [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]], as the "sovereign state" of [[Tatarstan]] and a "subject of international law". In 1994 Tatarstan and the [[Russia|Russian Federation]] entered into a treaty specifying that Tatarstan was "associated" with the latter (rather than being an integral part of it). Through the agreement, Tatarstan delegated certain powers (such as some foreign relations and defence) to Russia. Changes made to Tatarstan's constitution in 2002 have been seen by some commentators as fundamentally changing this relationship, with Tatarstan now functioning as essentially an integral part of Russia.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Stowe-Thurston | first=Abigail | title=A State of the Union: Federation and Autonomy in Tatarstan | journal=Russian Studies Honors Projects | date=29 April 2016 | url=https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/russ_honors/1/ | access-date=15 September 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/450/doc_452_290_en.pdf|title=External relations of Tatarstan|website=ethz.ch|access-date=15 September 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7ydo7Idyqj0C&q=russia+tatarstan+2000+federal+subject+agreement&pg=PA40|title=Of Khans and Kremlins: Tatarstan and the Future of Ethno-federalism in Russia|first=Katherine E.|last=Graney|date=21 October 2009|publisher=Lexington Books|via=Google Books|isbn=9780739126356}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://warontherocks.com/2018/01/moscows-fight-against-federalism-fear-and-loathing-in-russias-catalonia/|title=Fear and Loathing in Russia's Catalonia: Moscow's Fight Against Federalism|date=31 January 2018|website=War on the Rocks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.rferl.org/a/1098984.html|title=Tatarstan: Status Under Scrutiny As Lawmakers Change Constitution|newspaper=Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty|date=9 April 2008 }}</ref>

==Proposed associated states==
While Puerto Rico is described as a '[[Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico|free associated state]]' under its Spanish-language constitution, its status is not equivalent to that of a separate state under international law, since it legally remains a [[Territories of the United States|U.S. territory]].<ref>{{cite web| url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2484239 | ssrn=2484239 | doi=10.2139/ssrn.2484239| title=From Conquest to Consent: Puerto Rico and the Prospect of Genuine Free Association | date=20 August 2014 | last1=Keitner | first1=Chimène }}</ref> Some scholars and politicians have proposed Puerto Rico sign a [[Compact of Free Association]] with the U.S. The ''[[Sovereigntism (Puerto Rico)|soberanista]]'' movement advocates for the territory to be granted a freely associated status. The [[2017 Puerto Rican status referendum|2017 status referendum]] presented "Independence/Free Association" as an option; if the majority of voters had chosen it, a second round of voting would have been held to choose between free association and full independence. In 2022, the US Congress introduced the Puerto Rico Status Act, which would hold a federally-sponsored referendum on the territory's status, with a free association status expected to be presented as an option.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/congressional-lawmakers-reach-consensus-puerto-rico-status-bill-call-p-rcna29672|title=Lawmakers reach consensus on Puerto Rico status bill, call for plebiscite|first=Nicole|last=Acevedo|date=May 19, 2022|website=NBC News}}</ref>similar to those in force in the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau.<ref>{{Cite journal | url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40176161 | jstor=40176161 | title=In Contemplation of Micronesia: The Prospects for the Decolonization of Puerto Rico under International Law | last1=Rodríguez-Orellana | first1=Manuel | journal=The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review | year=1987 | volume=18 | issue= 3 | pages=457–490 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/rjupurco55&div=28&g_sent=1&casa_token=N32XI5EibNYAAAAA:3h01CxrQTewT6QUEy7ieHTjMyo6VW9KnvVcZLOh3ICzSnuxVdsk5vD9Ic0bGRi_fu9wyD6WQpQ&collection=journals | title=The Free Association Status in the Pacific Islands and Its Impact in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean|last = Rosenblatt|first = Peter R. }}</ref> A similar path has been proposed in order to update the political relationship between the [[Faroe Islands]] and [[Denmark]], in which the former would become an associated state of the latter.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=933739 | ssrn=933739 | title=Associate Statehood: Principles and Prospects | date=27 March 2010 | last1= Keitner | first1=Chimène }}</ref>

The [[Government of Guam|government]] of the U.S. unincorporated territory of [[Guam]], led by then-[[List of governors of Guam|Governor]] [[Eddie Baza Calvo|Eddie Calvo]], started campaigning in early 2011 for a plebiscite on Guam's future political status, with free association following the model of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau as one of the possible options.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.postguam.com/news/local/govguam-hopes-for-favorable-decision-on-plebiscite/article_36253956-cdf8-11e8-9666-0fe8bba7fddd.html|title=GovGuam hopes for favorable decision on plebiscite|first=Kevin Kerrigan and Gaynor D. Daleno &#124; The Guam Daily|last=Post|website=[[The Guam Daily Post]]|date=13 October 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/10/11/guam-pushes-for-native-only-vote-on-us-relationship/|title=Guam pushes for native-only vote on US relationship|author=Jennifer Sinco Kelleher|agency=Associated Press|date=12 October 2018|website=Navy Times}}</ref> The plebiscite, however, only allowed "native inhabitants" as defined under Guam law to register for it. A [[White people|white]], non-[[Chamorro people|Chamorro]] resident, Arnold Davis, filed a federal lawsuit in 2011 for being denied registration for the plebiscite and a July 2019 ruling by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] ultimately blocked the plebiscite on the basis that the law was race-based and violated constitutionally protected voting rights; the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] declined to hear the Government of Guam's appeal in May 2020.<ref>{{cite news|work=[[U.S. News & World Report]]|agency=Associated Press|date=May 5, 2020|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/hawaii/articles/2020-05-05/us-supreme-court-declines-to-take-up-guam-plebiscite-case|title=US Supreme Court Declines to Take up Guam Plebiscite Case|access-date=September 4, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|work=[[Pacific Daily News]]|first=Steve|last=Limtiaco|date=June 8, 2020|url=https://www.guampdn.com/story/news/local/2020/06/07/guam-weighs-options-salvage-political-status-plebiscite/3141176001/|title=Guam weighs options to salvage political status plebiscite|access-date=September 4, 2020}}</ref>

In 2003, then-[[Basque Country (autonomous community)|Basque Country]] [[Lehendakari|president]] [[Juan José Ibarretxe]] proposed to the [[Congress of Deputies|Spanish Congress of Deputies]] a reform that would have transformed the region from an [[Autonomous communities of Spain|autonomous community]] within [[Spain]] into a state in free association, thus making Spain a [[confederation|confederal state]]. The proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by the Congress.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nuevoestatutodeeuskadi.net/docs/dictamencomision20122004_cas.pdf |title=Archived copy |website=www.nuevoestatutodeeuskadi.net |access-date=11 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070715174650/http://www.nuevoestatutodeeuskadi.net/docs/dictamencomision20122004_cas.pdf |archive-date=15 July 2007 |url-status=usurped}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last=Basaguren | first=Alberto López | title=El País Vasco, el modelo de autonomía territorial y la pretensión constitucional del nacionalismo | journal=Fundamentos: Cuadernos monográficos de teoría del estado, derecho público e historia constitucional |issue=10 |year=2019| page=10 | url=https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6794881 | language=es}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20080519/plan-ibarretxe/57950.shtml|title = El Plan Ibarretxe| newspaper=Rtve.es |date = 19 May 2008|first = Laura G. |last=Torres|language = es}}</ref>

[[Tokelau]] (a dependent territory of New Zealand) voted on a [[2006 Tokelauan self-determination referendum|referendum in February 2006]] to determine whether it wanted to remain a New Zealand territory or become the third state in free association with New Zealand (after the Cook Islands and Niue). While a majority of voters chose free association, the vote did not meet the two-thirds threshold needed for approval. A similar [[2007 Tokelauan self-determination referendum|referendum in October 2007]] under United Nations supervision yielded similar results, with the proposed free association falling 16 votes short of approval.<ref name="NZ_Herald_10472094">{{cite web |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10472094 |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20170525212834/http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10472094 |url-status=dead |archive-date=25 May 2017 |title=Tokelau votes to remain dependent territory of New Zealand |author=Gregory, Angela |date=25 October 2007 |work=[[The New Zealand Herald]] |access-date=16 September 2011}}</ref>

The establishment of a [[Bangsamoro Juridical Entity]] (BJE) was proposed in 2008 by the [[Moro Islamic Liberation Front]] and the [[Philippines]]. The two parties were to sign a memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain which would lead to the establishment of a new autonomous government in the southern Philippines. However the deal was halted by the [[Supreme Court of the Philippines]], which ruled that the BJE's proposed "associative relationship" with the [[Government of the Philippines|Philippine national government]] was incompatible with the [[Constitution of the Philippines]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Frialde |first1=Mike |title=Supreme Court declares ancestral domain deal 'unconstitutional' |url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2008/10/15/407371/supreme-court-declares-ancestral-domain-deal-unconstitutional |access-date=6 June 2022 |work=The Philippine Star |date=15 October 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Cayabyab |first1=Marc Jayson |title=2 ex-magistrates clash over Bangsamoro bill's constitutionality |url=https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/647404/2-ex-magistrates-clash-over-bangsamoro-bills-constitutionality |access-date=6 June 2022 |newspaper=Philippine Daily Inquirer |date=28 October 2014 |language=en}}</ref>

Some form of free association has been suggested as a solution to occasional calls of [[self-determination]] by the people of [[Tobago]], the smaller island within the country of [[Trinidad and Tobago]], either within the single state (analogous to the situation of [[Scotland]] within the United Kingdom) or as a separate political entity.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://newsday.co.tt/2021/06/27/reflections-on-the-constitution-amendment-tobago-self-government-bill-2021/|title=Reflections on the Constitution (Amendment) (Tobago Self-Government) Bill, 2021|author1=Vanus James |author2=Winford James|work=Trinidad & Tobago Newsday|date=27 June 2021|access-date=30 September 2021}}</ref>

According to statements of officials of [[Abkhazia]] and [[Transnistria]] ([[List of states with limited recognition|self-proclaimed partially recognized republics]] seceded from the former [[Soviet Union|USSR's]] [[republics of the Soviet Union|constituent republics]] of [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]] and [[Moldova]] respectively), both intend, after recognition of their independence, to become associated states of the Russian Federation. In Transnistria a [[2006 Transnistrian independence referendum|referendum took place in September 2006]], in which secession from Moldova and "future free association" with Russia was approved by a margin of 97%, even though the results of the referendum were internationally unrecognised.{{Cn|date=May 2024}}

==Other comparable relationships==
Other situations exist where one state has power over another political unit. Dependent territories and the United Kingdom's [[Crown Dependencies|Crown dependencies]] are examples of this, where an area has its own political system and often internal self-government, but does not have overall sovereignty. In a loose form of association, some sovereign states cede some power to other states, often in terms of foreign affairs and defence.{{Cn|date=May 2024}}

===States currently ceding power to another state===
{{Further|Suzerainty}}
{| class="wikitable"
!width="120px"| Associated state
!class="unsortable" width="120px"|Associated with
!class="unsortable" width="90px"|Associated since
!class="unsortable"|Level of association
!class="unsortable" width="120px"|International status
|-
| [[Andorra]]
| [[Spain]] and<br />[[France]]
|1278
| Defence is the responsibility of Spain and France.<ref>{{cite web|title=Andorra at the CIA's page|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/andorra/|publisher=CIA|access-date=2010-07-15|author=CIA|date=15 July 2010}}</ref> Andorra is a co-principality between the head of state of France (currently the [[president of France|president]]) and the [[Roman Catholic Diocese of Urgell|Bishop of Urgell]].
|rowspan=7|[[Member states of the United Nations|UN member state]]
|-
| [[Kiribati]]
| [[Australia]] and<br />[[New Zealand]]
|1979
| Kiribati has no military. National defence is provided by Australia and New Zealand.<ref>{{Cite CIA World Factbook|country=Kiribati}}</ref>
|-
| [[Liechtenstein]]
| [[Switzerland]]
|1923
| Although the head of state represents Liechtenstein in its international relations, Switzerland has taken responsibility for much of Liechtenstein's diplomatic relations. Liechtenstein maintains no military.<ref>{{cite web|title=Liechtenstein at the CIA's page|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/liechtenstein/|publisher=CIA|access-date=2010-07-15|author=CIA|date=15 July 2010}}</ref>
|-
| [[Monaco]]
| [[France]]
|1861
| France has agreed to defend the independence and sovereignty of Monaco, while the Monegasque government has agreed to exercise its sovereign rights in conformity with French interests, which was reaffirmed by the [[Treaty of Versailles]] in 1919.<ref>{{cite web|title=Monaco at the CIA's page|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/monaco/|publisher=CIA|access-date=2010-07-15|author=CIA|date=15 July 2010}}</ref>
|-
| [[Nauru]]
| [[Australia]]
|1968
| Nauru has no military. Australia informally takes responsibility for its defence.<ref>{{cite web|title=Nauru at the CIA's page|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/nauru/|publisher=CIA|access-date=2010-07-15|author=CIA|date=15 July 2010}}</ref>
|-
| [[Samoa]]
| [[New Zealand]]
|1914
| Samoa has no regular military. New Zealand provides defence under an informal agreement, but Samoa is regarded as fully independent.<ref>{{Cite CIA World Factbook|country=Samoa}}</ref>
|-
| [[San Marino]]
| [[Italy]]
|1939
| Defence is the responsibility of Italy by arrangement.<ref>{{cite web|title=San Marino at the CIA's page|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/san-marino/|publisher=CIA|access-date=2010-07-15|author=CIA|date=15 July 2010}}</ref>
|-
|rowspan=2|[[Vatican City]]
| [[Switzerland]]
| 1506
|Vatican City uses the [[Swiss Guard|Pontifical Swiss Guard]], founded by [[Pope Julius II]] and provided by Switzerland, as the Pope's bodyguards.<ref name=Vatican>{{cite web|title=Holy See (Vatican City) at the CIA's page|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vt.html|publisher=CIA|access-date=2010-07-15|author=CIA|date=15 July 2010| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100711171410/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vt.html| archive-date= 11 July 2010 | url-status= dead}}</ref>
|rowspan=2|[[United Nations General Assembly observers|UN General Assembly observer state]]
|-
|[[Italy]]
|1929
|According to the [[Lateran Treaty]], anyone who loses Vatican City citizenship and possesses no other citizenship automatically becomes an Italian citizen. The military defence of the Vatican City is provided by Italy.<ref name=Vatican/>
|}

===States formerly ceding power to another state===
[[Iceland]], formerly part of [[Denmark]], became a nominally sovereign state in 1918. It remained in a personal union with the [[Monarchy of Denmark|Danish Crown]] and continued to have a common foreign policy with Denmark until 1944, when it became fully independent.<ref>{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-FH3AwAAQBAJ&q=iceland+associated+state+1918&pg=PA177 | title=Sources of State Practice in International Law: Second Revised Edition| isbn=9789004272224| last1=Gaebler| first1=Ralph| last2=Shea| first2=Alison| date=6 June 2014| publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers}}</ref>

[[Bhutan]], a former [[protectorate]] of [[British Raj|British India]], agreed in a 1949 treaty to allow the newly independent [[India]] to guide its foreign relations in a relatively loose form of association, which resulted in Bhutan sometimes being described as a "protected state".<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.mea.gov.in/pressrelease/2007/03/treaty.pdf |title=Indo-Bhutan Friendship Treaty }}&nbsp;{{small|(30.6&nbsp;[[Kibibyte|KiB]])}})</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thewire.in/south-asia/how-bhutan-came-to-not-be-a-part-of-india|title=How Bhutan Came to Not Be a Part of India|website=The Wire|first = Swati|last = Chawla|date = 8 February 2019}}</ref> This relationship was updated in a 2007 treaty, in which the provision requiring Bhutan to accept India's guidance on foreign policy was rescinded.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Nepal and Bhutan in 2007: Seeking an Elusive Consensus|first=John|last=Whelpton|date=1 February 2008|journal=Asian Survey|volume=48|issue=1|pages=184–190|doi=10.1525/as.2008.48.1.184}}</ref>

==Microstates as modern protected states==
The existence of free relationship based on both delegation of sovereignty and benign protection can be seen as a defining feature of [[Microstate|microstates]]. According to the definition of microstates proposed by Dumienski (2014): "Microstates are modern protected states, i.e. sovereign states that have been able to unilaterally depute certain attributes of sovereignty to larger powers in exchange for benign protection of their political and economic viability against their geographic or demographic constraints."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Dumieński |first=Zbigniew |date=2014 |title=Microstates as Modern Protected States: Towards a New Definition of Micro-Statehood |url=http://ams.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Microstates_OccasionalPaper.pdf |url-status=dead |series=Occasional Paper |publisher=Centre for Small State Studies |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714195156/http://ams.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Microstates_OccasionalPaper.pdf |archive-date=14 July 2014 |access-date=20 August 2014}}</ref> Adopting this approach permits separating microstates from both small states and autonomies or dependencies. Microstates understood as modern protected states may include such states as [[Liechtenstein]], [[San Marino]], [[Monaco]], [[Vatican City]], [[Andorra]], [[Niue]], the [[Cook Islands]], and [[Palau]].{{Cn|date=May 2024}}

==See also==
* [[Commonwealth realm]]
* [[Crown Dependencies|Crown dependency]]
* [[Dominion]]
* [[External association]], 1921 proposed relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom
* [[Home rule]]
* [[Self-governing colony]]

==Notes==
{{Reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{Autonomous types of first-tier administration}}
{{Types of administrative division}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Associated State}}
[[Category:Constitutional state types]]
[[Category:Associated states| ]]
[[Category:Political systems]]