text:
Sovereign state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A sovereign state is, in international law, a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.[2]
Member states of the United Nations, all of which are sovereign states, though not all sovereign states are necessarily members.
While according to the declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.
Contents
[hide]
1 Westphalian sovereignty
2 Recognition
2.1 Constitutive theory
2.2 Declarative theory
2.3 State recognition
2.4 De facto and de jure states
3 Relationship between state and government
4 State extinction
5 Ontological status of the state
5.1 The state as "quasi-abstract"
5.2 The state as "spiritual entity"
6 Trends in the number of states
7 See also
8 References
8.1 Bibliography
9 Further reading
10 External links
Westphalian sovereignty[edit]
Main article: Westphalian sovereignty
Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations that began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.
Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused.[3][4] Up until the 19th century, the radicalised concept of a "standard of civilization" was routinely deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were "uncivilised", and lacking organised societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their "sovereignty" was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of "civilised" people."[5] Lassa Oppenheim said, "There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon."[6] In the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High Court of Australia, "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all."[7]
Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The United Nations Charter, the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organizations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law.[8][9] The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognized.[10][11][12]
In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.[13]
Named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the Westphalian System of state sovereignty, which according to Bryan Turner is "made a more or less clear separation between religion and state, and recognised the right of princes 'to confessionalise' the state, that is, to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms on the pragmatic principle of cuius regio eius religio."[14]
The Westphalian model of state sovereignty has increasingly come under fire from the "non-west" as a system imposed solely by Western Colonialism. What this model did was make religion a subordinate to politics,[14] a problem that has caused some issues in the Islamic world. This system does not fit in the Islamic world because concepts such as "separation of church and state" and "individual conscience" are not recognised in the Islamic religion as social systems.
In casual usage, the terms "country", "nation", and "state" are often used as if they were synonymous; but in stricter usage they can be distinguished:[citation needed]
Country denotes a region of land defined by geographical features or political boundaries.
Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, religion, language, origins, ancestry or history. However, the adjectives national and international are frequently used to refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly sovereign states, as in national capital, international law.
State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population. Sovereign states are legal persons.
Recognition[edit]
State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state.[15] Recognition can be either expressed or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It does not necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.
There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal.[16] L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and Czechoslovak states in World War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government."[17]
In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognised as sovereign.[18]
Constitutive theory[edit]
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognised it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognised nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.[19] In 1815, at the Congress of Vienna the Final Act recognised only 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result it was firmly established that in the future new states would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the great powers.[20]
One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognise a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested that it is a state's duty to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognise another state if it is to their advantage.[19]
In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:
International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it isn't recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.[21]
Declarative theory[edit]
Main article: Montevideo Convention
By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.[22]
Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself.[23] In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. An important part of the convention was Aricle 11 that prohibits using military force to gain sovereignty.
A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states.[24]
State recognition[edit]
See also: List of states with limited recognition
State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive approaches.[25] International law does not require a state to recognise other states.[26] Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this, the former only having been recognized by South Africa, and the latter only recognized by Turkey. In the case of Rhodesia, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority régime".[27] In the case of Northern Cyprus, recognition was withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus.[28] International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,[29] and the recognition of a country is a political issue.[30] As a result, Turkish Cypriots gained "observer status" in the PACE, and their representatives are elected in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus;[31] and Northern Cyprus became an observer member of the OIC and the ECO.
De facto and de jure states[edit]
Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e., they exist both in law and in reality). However, a state may be recognised only as a de jure state, in that it is recognised as being the legitimate government of a territory over which it has no actual control. For example, during the Second World War, governments-in-exile of a number of continental European states continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. The PLO and Palestinian Authority claim that the State of Palestine is a sovereign state, a claim which has been recognised by most states, though the territory it claims is under the de facto control of Israel.[32][46] Other entities may have de facto control over a territory but lack international recognition; these may be considered by the international community to be only de facto states. They are considered de jure states only according to their own law and by states that recognise them. For example, Somaliland is commonly considered to be such a state.[47][48][49][50] For a list of entities that wish to be universally recognised as sovereign states, but do not have complete worldwide diplomatic recognition, see the list of states with limited recognition.
Relationship between state and government[edit]
Although the terms "state" and "government" are often used interchangeably,[51] international law distinguishes between a non-physical state and its government; and in fact, the concept of "government-in-exile" is predicated upon that distinction.[52] States are non-physical juridical entities, and not organisations of any kind.[53] However, ordinarily, only the government of a state can obligate or bind the state, for example by treaty.[52]
State extinction[edit]
Generally speaking, states are durable entities, though it is possible for them to become extinguished, either through voluntary means or outside forces, such as military conquest. According to a 2004 study, violent state abolition has virtually ceased since the end of World War II.[54] Because states are non-physical juridical entities, it has been argued their extinction cannot be due to physical force alone.[55] Instead, the physical actions of the military must be associated with the correct social or judiciary actions in order to abolish a state.
Ontological status of the state[edit]
The ontological status of the state has been the subject of debate,[56] specially, whether or not the state, being an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise detect,[57] actually exists.
The state as "quasi-abstract"[edit]
It has been argued that one potential reason as to why the existence of states has been controversial is because states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of the concrete and the abstract.[58] Characteristically, concrete objects are those that have position in time and space, which states do not have (though their territories have spatial position, but states are distinct from their territories), and abstract objects have position in neither time nor space, which does not fit the supposed characteristics of states either, since states do have temporal position (they can be created at certain times and then become extinct at a future time). Therefore, it has been argued that states belong to a third category, the quasi-abstract, that has recently begun to garner philosophical attention, especially in the area of documentality, an ontological theory that seeks to understand the role of documents in understanding all of social reality. Quasi-abstract objects, such as states, can be brought into being through document acts, and can also be used to manipulate them, such as by binding them by treaty or surrendering them as the result of a war.[58]
Scholars in international relations can be broken up into two different practices, realists and pluralists, of what they believe the ontological state of the state is. Realists believe that the world is one of only states and interstate relations and the identity of the state is defined before any international relations with other states. On the other hand, pluralists believe that the state is not the only actor in international relations and interactions between states and the state is competing against many other actors.[59]
The state as "spiritual entity"[edit]
Another theory of the ontology of the state is that the state is a spiritual,[60] or "mystical entity"[60] with its own being, distinct from the members of the state.[60] The German Idealist philosopher Georg Hegel (1770–1831) was perhaps the greatest proponent of this theory.[60] The Hegelian definition of the state is "the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth".[61]
Trends in the number of states[edit]
Since the end of World War II, the number of sovereign states in the international system has surged.[62] Some research suggests that the existence of international and regional organisations, the greater availability of economic aid, and greater acceptance of the norm of self-determination have increased the desire of political units to secede and can be credited for the increase in the number of states in the international system.[63][64] Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and Tufts economist Enrico Spolaore argue in their book, Size of Nations, that the increase in the number of states can partly be credited to a more peaceful world, greater free trade and international economic integration, democratisation, and the presence of international organisations that co-ordinate economic and political policies.[65]
See also[edit]
Exclusive mandate
Failed state
Federated state
List of sovereign states (by formation date)
List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent
Nation-building
Rule according to higher law
Stateless society
Unitary state
Proto-state
References[edit]
Jump up ^ See the following:
Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law. Cambridge University Press. p. 178. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states'
Jasentuliyana, Nandasiri, ed. (1995). Perspectives on international law. Kluwer Law International. p. 20. So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided for in the Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted.
Jump up ^ See the following:
Wheaton, Henry (1836). Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science. Carey, Lea & Blanchard. p. 51. A sovereign state is generally defined to be any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers.
"sovereign", The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.), Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, retrieved 21 February 2010, adj. 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.
"sovereign", The New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-19-517077-6, adjective ... [ attrib. ] (of a nation or state) fully independent and determining its own affairs.
Jump up ^ Krasner, Stephen D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00711-X.
Jump up ^ Núñez, Jorge Emilio (2013). "About the Impossibility of Absolute State Sovereignty". International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. 27 (4): 645. doi:10.1007/s11196-013-9333-x.
Jump up ^ Wilde, Ralph (2009). "From Trusteeship to Self-Determination and Back Again: The Role of the Hague Regulations in the Evolution of International Trusteeship, and the Framework of Rights and Duties of Occupying Powers". Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 31: 85–142 [p. 94].
Jump up ^ Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928)
Jump up ^ Akweenda, Sackey (1997). "Sovereignty in cases of Mandated Territories". International law and the protection of Namibia's territorial integrity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 40. ISBN 90-411-0412-7.
Jump up ^ "Chapter IV Fundamental Rights and Duties of States". Charter of the Organization of American States. Secretariat of The Organization of American States. Retrieved 21 November 2010.
Jump up ^ "Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States" (PDF). UN Treaty Organization. 1949. Retrieved 21 November 2010.
Jump up ^ "General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent sovereignty over natural resources"". United Nations. Retrieved 21 November 2010.
Jump up ^ Schwebel, Stephen M., The Story of the U.N.'s Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, 49 A.B.A. J. 463 (1963)
Jump up ^ "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".
Jump up ^ Grinin L. E. Globalization and Sovereignty: Why do States Abandon their Sovereign Prerogatives? Age of Globalization. Number 1 / 2008 [1]
^ Jump up to: a b Turner, Bryan (July 2007). "Islam, Religious Revival and the Sovereign State". Muslim World. 97 (3): 405–418.
Jump up ^ "Recognition", Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy.
Jump up ^ See B. Broms, "IV Recognition of States", pp 47-48 in International law: achievements and prospects, UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui(ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 92-3-102716-6 [2]
Jump up ^ See Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0-7923-0450-0, page 135-136 [3]
Jump up ^ Thomas D. Grant, The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1999), chapter 1.
^ Jump up to: a b Hillier, Tim (1998). Sourcebook on Public International Law. Routledge. pp. 201–2. ISBN 1-85941-050-2.
Jump up ^ Kalevi Jaakko Holsti Taming the Sovereigns p. 128.
Jump up ^ Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh (2005). International Law: A Treatise. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 135. ISBN 1-58477-609-9.
Jump up ^ Hersch Lauterpacht (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 419. ISBN 9781107609433.
Jump up ^ "CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES". www.oas.org.
Jump up ^ Castellino, Joshua (2000). International Law and Self-Determination: The Interplay of the Politics of Territorial Possession With Formulations of Post-Colonial National Identity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 77. ISBN 90-411-1409-2.
Jump up ^ Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 369. ISBN 0-521-53183-7.
Jump up ^ Opinion No. 10. of the Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia.
Jump up ^ United Nations Security Council Resolution 216
Jump up ^ United Nations Security Council Resolution 541
Jump up ^ BBC The President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi Owada (2010): "International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence."
Jump up ^ Oshisanya, An Almanac of Contemporary and Comperative Judicial Restatement, 2016 p.64: The ICJ maintained that ... the issue of recognition was a political.
Jump up ^ James Ker-Lindsay (UN SG's Former Special Representative for Cyprus) The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States, p.149
^ Jump up to: a b Staff writers (20 February 2008). "Palestinians 'may declare state'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2011-01-22. :"Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence".
^ Jump up to: a b B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories: Israel's control of the airspace and the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip, Retrieved 2012-03-24.
Jump up ^ Map of Gaza fishing limits, "security zones"
Jump up ^ Israel's Disengagement Plan: Renewing the Peace Process Archived 2 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine.: "Israel will guard the perimeter of the Gaza Strip, continue to control Gaza air space, and continue to patrol the sea off the Gaza coast. ... Israel will continue to maintain its essential military presence to prevent arms smuggling along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Philadelphi Route), until the security situation and cooperation with Egypt permit an alternative security arrangement."
Jump up ^ Gold, Dore; Institute for Contemporary Affairs (26 August 2005). "Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
Jump up ^ Bell, Abraham (28 January 2008). "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
Jump up ^ "Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference" (Press release). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. 22 January 2008. Archived from the original on 26 October 2011. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
Jump up ^ Salih, Zak M. (17 November 2005). "Panelists Disagree Over Gaza's Occupation Status". University of Virginia School of Law. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
Jump up ^ "Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation". Human Rights Watch. 29 October 2004. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
Jump up ^ Gold, Dore; Institute for Contemporary Affairs (26 August 2005). "Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
Jump up ^ Bell, Abraham (28 January 2008). "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
Jump up ^ "Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference" (Press release). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. 22 January 2008. Archived from the original on 26 October 2011. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
Jump up ^ Salih, Zak M. (17 November 2005). "Panelists Disagree Over Gaza's Occupation Status". University of Virginia School of Law. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
Jump up ^ "Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation". Human Rights Watch. 29 October 2004. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
Jump up ^ Israel allows the PNA to execute some functions in the Palestinian territories, depending on special area classification. Israel maintains minimal interference (retaining control of borders: air,[33] sea beyond internal waters,[33][34] land[35]) in the Gaza strip and maximum in "Area C".[36][37][38][39][40] See also Israeli-occupied territories.
[32][41][42][43][44][45]
Jump up ^ Arieff, Alexis (2008). "De facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland" (PDF). Yale Journal of International Affairs. 3: 60–79. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
Jump up ^ "The List: Six Reasons You May Need A New Atlas Soon". Foreign Policy Magazine. July 2007. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
Jump up ^ "Overview of De-facto States". Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. July 2008. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
Jump up ^ Wiren, Robert (April 2008). "France recognises de facto Somaliland". Les Nouvelles d'Addis Magazine. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
Jump up ^ Robinson, E. H. (2013). "The Distinction Between State and Government" (PDF). The Geography Compass. 7 (8): 556–566.
^ Jump up to: a b Crawford, J. (2006). The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-826002-4.
Jump up ^ Robinson, Edward Heath (2010). "An Ontological Analysis of States: Organizations vs. Legal Persons" (PDF). Applied Ontology. 5: 109–125.
Jump up ^ Fazal, Tanisha M. (1 April 2004). "State Death in the International System". International Organization. 58 (2): 311–344. doi:10.1017/S0020818304582048. ISSN 1531-5088.
Jump up ^ Robinson, Edward Heath (2011). "The Involuntary Extinction of States: An Examination of the Destruction of States though the Application of Military Force by Foreign Powers since the Second World War" (PDF). The Journal of Military Geography. 1: 17–29.
Jump up ^ Ringmar, Erik (1996). "On the ontological status of the state". European Journal of International Relations. 2 (4): 439. doi:10.1177/1354066196002004002.
Jump up ^ A. James (1986). Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society (London: Allen & Unwin)
^ Jump up to: a b Robinson, Edward H. (2014). "A documentary theory of states and their existence as quasi-abstract entities" (PDF). Geopolitics. 19 (3): 1–29. doi:10.1080/14650045.2014.913027. Retrieved 16 September 2014.
Jump up ^ Ringmar, Erik (1996). "On the Ontological Status of the State". European Journal of International Relations. 10 (2).
^ Jump up to: a b c d Schmandt & Steinbicker 1954, p. 71
Jump up ^ Schmandt & Steinbicker 1954, p. 71 (citing Hegel's Philosophy of History, trans. J. Sibree [New York: Wiley Book Co., 1934]); see also Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (2012) [1899]. The Philosophy of History. Courier Corporation. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-486-11900-7.
Jump up ^ "The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy". SAGE Publications. pp. 294–295. Retrieved 2016-11-17.
Jump up ^ Fazal, Tanisha M.; Griffiths, Ryan D. (1 March 2014). "Membership Has Its Privileges: The Changing Benefits of Statehood". International Studies Review. 16 (1): 79–106. doi:10.1111/misr.12099. ISSN 1468-2486.
Jump up ^ "The State of Secession in International Politics". E-International Relations. Retrieved 2016-11-16.
Jump up ^ "The Size of Nations". MIT Press. Retrieved 2016-11-16.
Bibliography[edit]
Schmandt, Henry J.; Steinbicker, Paul G. (1954). Fundamentals of Government (2nd printing, 1956 ed.). Bruce Publishing Company.
Further reading[edit]
Chen, Ti-chiang. The International Law of Recognition, with Special Reference to Practice in Great Britain and the United States. London, 1951.
Crawford, James. The Creation of States in International Law. Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-19-825402-4, pp. 15–24.
Lauterpacht, Hersch (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107609433.
Raič, D. Statehood and the Law of Self-determination. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002. ISBN 978-90-411-1890-5. p 29 (with reference to Oppenheim in International Law Vol. 1 1905 p110)
Schmandt, Henry J., and Paul G. Steinbicker. Fundamentals of Government, "Part Three. The Philosophy of the State" (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1954 [2nd printing, 1956]). 507 pgs. 23 cm. LOC classification: JA66 .S35 https://lccn.loc.gov/54010666
External links[edit]
Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee at the European Journal of International Law
A Brief Primer on International Law With cases and commentary. Nathaniel Burney, 2007.
What constitutes the sovereign state? by Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck
Links to the best political risk websites, ipoliticalrisk.com information on tracking, evaluating and managing sovereign risk for trade and permanent investment
Legal opinion by the Negotiations Support Unit in the Palestinian Authority on transitional sovereignty
[show]
v
t
e
Designations for types of administrative territorial entities
[show]
English terms
Common English terms1
Area
Insular area
Local government area
Protected area
Special area
Statistical area
Combined statistical area
Metropolitan statistical area
Micropolitan statistical area
Urban area
Canton
Half-canton
Borough
County borough
Metropolitan borough
Capital
Federal capital
Imperial capital
City
City state
Autonomous city
Charter city
Independent city
Incorporated city
Imperial city
Free imperial city
Royal free city
Community
Autonomous community
Residential community
County
Administrative county
Autonomous county
Consolidated city-county
Metropolitan county
Non-metropolitan
Viscountcy
Country
Overseas country
Department
Overseas department
District
Capital district
City district
Congressional district
Electoral district
Federal district
Indian government district
Land district
Metropolitan district
Non-metropolitan district
Military district
Municipal district
Police district
Regional district
Rural district
Sanitary district
Subdistrict
Urban district
Special district
Division
Census division
Police division
Subdivision
Municipality
County municipality
Norway
Nova Scotia
Regional county municipality
Direct-controlled municipality
District municipality
Mountain resort municipality
Neutral municipality
Regional municipality
Resort municipality
Rural municipality
Specialized municipality
Prefecture
Autonomous prefecture
Subprefecture
Super-prefecture
Praetorian prefecture
Province
Autonomous province
Overseas province
Roman province
Region
Administrative region
Autonomous region
Capital region
Development region
Economic region
Mesoregion
Microregion
Overseas region
Planning region
Special administrative region
Statistical region
Subregion
Reserve
Biosphere reserve
Ecological reserve
Game reserve
Indian reserve
Nature reserve
State
Federal state
Free state
Sovereign state
Territory
Capital territory
Federal capital territory
Dependent territory
Federal territory
Military territory
Organized incorporated territory
Overseas territory
Union territory
Unorganized territory
Town
Census town
Market town
Township
Charter township
Civil township
Paper township
Survey township
Urban township
Unit
Autonomous territorial unit
Local administrative unit
Municipal unit
Regional unit
Zone
Economic zone
Exclusive economic zone
Free economic zone
Special economic zone
Free-trade zone
Neutral zone
Self-administered zone
Other English terms
Current
Alpine resort
Bailiwick
Banner
Autonomous
Block
Cadastre
Circle
Circuit
Colony
Commune
Condominium
Constituency
Duchy
Eldership
Emirate
Federal dependency
Governorate
Hamlet
Ilkhanate
Indian reservation
Manor
Royal
Muftiate
Neighbourhood
Parish
Periphery
Precinct
Principality
Protectorate
Quarter
Regency
Autonomous republic
Riding
Sector
Autonomous
Shire
Sultanate
Suzerainty
Townland
Village
Administrative
Summer
Ward
Historical
Agency
Barony
Burgh
Exarchate
Hide
Hundred
Imperial Circle
March
Monthon
Presidency
Residency
Roman diocese
Seat
Tenth
Tithing
[show]
Non-English or loanwords
Current
Amt
Bakhsh
Barangay
Bezirk
Regierungsbezirk
Comune
Frazione
Fu
Gemeinde
Județ
Kunta / kommun
Finland
Sweden
Län
Località
Megye
Muban
Oblast
Autonomous
Okrug
Ostān
Poblacion
Purok
Shahrestān
Sum
Sýsla
Tehsil
Vingtaine
Historical
Commote
Gau
Heerlijkheid
Köping
Maalaiskunta
Nome
Egypt
Greece
Pagus
Pargana
Plasă
Satrapy
Socken
Subah
Syssel
Zhou
[show]
v
t
e
Arabic terms for country subdivisions
First-level
Muhafazah (محافظة governorate)
Wilayah (ولاية province)
Mintaqah (منطقة region)
Mudiriyah (مديرية directorate)
Imarah (إمارة emirate)
Baladiyah (بلدية municipality)
Shabiyah (شعبية "popularate")
Second / third-level
Mintaqah (منطقة region)
Qadaa (قضاء district)
Nahiyah (ناحية subdistrict)
Markaz (مركز district)
Mutamadiyah (معتمدية "delegation")
Daerah/Daïra (دائرة circle)
Liwa (لواء banner / sanjak)
City / township-level
Amanah (أمانة municipality)
Baladiyah (بلدية municipality)
Ḥai (حي neighborhood / quarter)
Mahallah (محلة)
Qarya (قرية)
Sheyakhah (شياخة "neighborhood subdivision")
English translations given are those most commonly used.
[show]
v
t
e
French terms for country subdivisions
arrondissement
département
préfecture
subprefectures
[show]
v
t
e
Greek terms for country subdivisions
Modern
apokentromenes dioikiseis / geniki dioikisis§ / diamerisma§ / periphereia
nomos§ / periphereiaki enotita
demos / eparchia§ / koinotita§
Historical
archontia/archontaton
bandon
demos
despotaton
dioikesis
doukaton
droungos
eparchia
exarchaton
katepanikion
kephalatikion
kleisoura
meris
naukrareia
satrapeia
strategis
thema
toparchia
tourma
§ signifies a defunct institution
[show]
v
t
e
Portuguese terms for country subdivisions
Regional subdivisions
Estado
Distrito federal
Província
Região
Distrito
Comarca
Capitania
Local subdivisions
Município
Concelho
Freguesia
Comuna
Circunscrição
Settlements
Cidade
Vila
Aldeia
Bairro
Lugar
Historical subdivisions in italics.
[show]
v
t
e
Slavic terms for country subdivisions
Current
dzielnica
gmina
krai
kraj
krajina / pokrajina
městys
obec
oblast / oblast' / oblasti / oblys / obwód / voblast'
okręg
okres
okrug
opština / općina / občina / obshtina
osiedle
powiat / povit
raion
selsoviet / silrada
sołectwo
voivodeship / vojvodina
županija
Historical
darugha
gromada
guberniya / gubernia
jurydyka
khutor
obshchina
okolia
opole
pogost
prowincja
sorok
srez
starostwo / starostva
uyezd
volost
ziemia
župa
[show]
v
t
e
Spanish terms for country subdivisions
National, Federal
Comunidad autónoma
Departamento
Distrito federal
Estado
Provincia
Región
Regional, Metropolitan
Cantón
Comarca
Comuna
Corregimiento
Delegación
Distrito
Mancomunidad
Merindad
Municipalidad
Municipio
Parroquia
Ecuador
Spain
Urban, Rural
Aldea
Alquería
Anteiglesia
Asentamiento
Asentamiento informal
Pueblos jóvenes
Barrio
Campamento
Caserío
Ciudad
Ciudad autónoma
Colonia
Lugar
Masía
Pedanía
Población
Ranchería
Sitio
Vereda
Villa
Village (Pueblito/Pueblo)
Historical subdivisions in italics.
[show]
v
t
e
Turkish terms for country subdivisions
Modern
il (province)
ilçe (district)
şehir (city)
kasaba (town)
belediye (municipality)
belde (community)
köy (village)
mahalle (neighbourhood/quarter)
Historical
ağalık (feudal district)
bucak (subdistrict)
beylerbeylik (province)
kadılık (subprovince)
kaza (sub-province)
hidivlik (viceroyalty)
mutasarrıflık (subprovince)
nahiye (nahiyah)
paşalık (province)
reya (Romanian principalities)
sancak (prefecture)
vilayet (province)
voyvodalık (Romanian provinces)
1 Used by ten or more countries or having derived terms. Historical derivations in italics.
See also: Census division, Electoral district, Political division, and List of administrative divisions by country
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sovereign_state&oldid=815113487"
Categories:
International law
Political geography
Sovereignty
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
Use dmy dates from November 2017
Use British English from November 2014
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from January 2011
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Aragonés
বাংলা
Bân-lâm-gú
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
भोजपुरी
Български
Bosanski
Brezhoneg
Буряад
Català
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Fiji Hindi
Føroyskt
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Ilokano
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
עברית
Latina
മലയാളം
مصرى
Монгол
Nederlands
日本語
Occitan
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
Patois
Português
Română
Русский
Shqip
සිංහල
Simple English
Soomaaliga
کوردی
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Татарча/tatarça
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
Walon
Winaray
ייִדיש
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 12 December 2017, at 21:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: b

attrs: href title

attrs: href class title

values:
/wiki/Legal_personality
mw-redirect
Legal personality

value: sup

value: p

value: img

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

values:
/wiki/Lassa_Oppenheim
mw-redirect
Lassa Oppenheim

values: Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Cuius_regio_eius_religio
mw-redirect
Cuius regio eius religio

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (January 2011)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values:
/wiki/Public_international_law
mw-redirect
Public international law

values:
/wiki/Badinter_Arbitration_Committee
mw-redirect
Badinter Arbitration Committee

values: Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence

values:
/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid
mw-redirect
South Africa under apartheid

values: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

values: Edit section: De facto and de jure states

values:
/wiki/Second_World_War
mw-redirect
Second World War

values:
/wiki/Palestinian_Authority
mw-redirect
Palestinian Authority

values: International recognition of the State of Palestine

values: Edit section: Relationship between state and government

values: Edit section: Ontological status of the state

values: Edit section: The state as "quasi-abstract"

values: Edit section: The state as "spiritual entity"

values:
/wiki/Georg_Hegel
mw-redirect
Georg Hegel

values: Edit section: Trends in the number of states

values: List of sovereign states by date of formation

values: -moz-column-width: 25em; -webkit-column-width: 25em; column-width: 25em;

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11196-013-9333-x

values: International Standard Book Number (identifier)

values: s:United Nations Security Council Resolution 216

values: s:United Nations Security Council Resolution 541

values:
nofollow
external text
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7254434.stm

values: Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords

values:
/wiki/National_airspace
mw-redirect
National airspace

values: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

values: European Union Border Assistance Mission Rafah

values: Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/1531-5088

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1111%2Fmisr.12099

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/1468-2486

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external free
https://lccn.loc.gov/54010666

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.ipoliticalrisk.com

values: Template:Terms for types of country subdivisions

values: Template talk:Terms for types of country subdivisions

values: List of terms for administrative divisions

values:
/wiki/Incorporated_city
mw-redirect
Incorporated city

values:
/wiki/Imperial_city
mw-redirect
Imperial city

values: Autonomous counties of the People's Republic of China

values:
/wiki/Overseas_country
mw-redirect
Overseas country

values:
/wiki/Capital_district
mw-redirect
Capital district

values: List of municipalities in British Columbia

values: Lands administrative divisions of Australia

values:
/wiki/Metropolitan_district
mw-redirect
Metropolitan district

values: List of regional districts of British Columbia

values:
/wiki/County_municipality_(Nova_Scotia)
mw-redirect
County municipality (Nova Scotia)

values:
/wiki/Mountain_resort_municipality
mw-redirect
Mountain resort municipality

values:
/wiki/Neutral_municipality
mw-redirect
Neutral municipality

values:
/wiki/Resort_municipality
mw-redirect
Resort municipality

values:
/wiki/Specialized_municipality
mw-redirect
Specialized municipality

values:
/wiki/Autonomous_prefecture
mw-redirect
Autonomous prefecture

values:
/wiki/Administrative_region
mw-redirect
Administrative region

values:
/wiki/Autonomous_region
mw-redirect
Autonomous region

values: Statistical region (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Biosphere_reserve
mw-redirect
Biosphere reserve

values:
/wiki/Ecological_reserve
mw-redirect
Ecological reserve

values:
/wiki/Federal_state
mw-redirect
Federal state

values:
/wiki/Capital_territory
mw-redirect
Capital territory

values:
/wiki/Federal_capital_territory
mw-redirect
Federal capital territory

values: Military territory (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Organized_incorporated_territory
mw-redirect
Organized incorporated territory

values:
/wiki/Overseas_territory
mw-redirect
Overseas territory

values:
/wiki/Regional_unit
mw-redirect
Regional unit

values:
/wiki/Economic_zone
mw-redirect
Economic zone

values:
/wiki/Royal_manor
mw-redirect
Royal manor

values:
/wiki/Periphery_(country_subdivision)
mw-redirect
Periphery (country subdivision)

values: List of regencies and cities of Indonesia

values:
/wiki/Autonomous_sector
mw-redirect
Autonomous sector

values:
/wiki/Presidency_(country_subdivision)
mw-redirect
Presidency (country subdivision)

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-subgroup

values: Template:Arabic terms for country subdivisions

values: Template talk:Arabic terms for country subdivisions

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-subgroup

values: Template:French terms for country subdivisions

values: Template talk:French terms for country subdivisions

values: Template:Greek terms for country subdivisions

values: Template talk:Greek terms for country subdivisions

values: Municipalities and communities of Greece

values: Template:Portuguese terms for country subdivisions

values: Template talk:Portuguese terms for country subdivisions (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Distrito_federal
mw-redirect
Distrito federal

values: Template:Slavic terms for country subdivisions

values: Template talk:Slavic terms for country subdivisions

values: Template:Spanish terms for country subdivisions

values: Template talk:Spanish terms for country subdivisions

values: Template:Turkish terms for country subdivisions

values: Template talk:Turkish terms for country subdivisions

values: List of administrative divisions by country

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:Use dmy dates from November 2017

values: Category:Use British English from November 2014

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from January 2011

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Sovereign_state
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: دولة ذات سيادة – Arabic

values: সার্বভৌম রাষ্ট্র – Bangla

values: Суверэнная дзяржава – Belarusian

values: Сувэрэнная дзяржава – Belarusian (Taraškievica orthography)

values: संप्रभु राज्य – Bhojpuri

values: Суверенна държава – Bulgarian

values: Бүрин эрхэтэ улас – Russia Buriat

values:
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estat
Estat – Catalan
ca
ca
interlanguage-link-target

values: Κυρίαρχο κράτος – Greek

values: کشور مستقل – Persian

values:
https://hif.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajya
Rajya – Fiji Hindi
hif
hif
interlanguage-link-target

values: Ինքնիշխան պետություն – Armenian

values: सम्प्रभु राज्य – Hindi

values: מדינה ריבונית – Hebrew

values: പരമാധികാര രാഷ്ട്രം – Malayalam

values: Бүрэн эрхт улс – Mongolian

values: ਸਿਰਮੌਰ ਰਾਜ – Punjabi

values:
https://jam.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiet
Stiet – Jamaican Creole English
jam
jam
interlanguage-link-target

values: Teoria constitutiva do Estado – Portuguese

values: Суверенное государство – Russian

values: ස්වෛරීය රාජ්‍යය – Sinhala

values: دەوڵەتی خاوەن سەروەری – Central Kurdish

values: Суверена држава – Serbian

values: இறைமையுள்ள நாடு – Tamil

values: Суверен дәүләт – Tatar

values: รัฐเอกราช – Thai

values: Суверенна держава – Ukrainian

values: خود مختار ریاست – Urdu

values: סואווערענער שטאט – Yiddish

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Sovereign_state rootpage-Sovereign_state skin-vector action-view


text:
Models of communication
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shannon and Weaver's model of communication
Communication major dimensions scheme
Communication code scheme
Linear Communication Model
Interactional Model of Communication
Berlo's Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver Model of Communication
Transactional Model of Communication
Models of communication are conceptual models used to explain the human communication process. The first major model for communication was developed in 1948 by Claude Elwood Shannon and published with an introduction by Warren Weaver for Bell Laboratories.[1] Following the basic concept, communication is the process of sending and receiving messages or transferring information from one part (sender) to another (receiver).[2]
In 1960, David Berlo expanded the linear transmission model [3] with the Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver(SMCR) Model of Communication. [4] Later, Wilbur Schramm introduced a model that identified multiple variables in communication which includes the transmitter, encoding, media, decoding, and receiver. [5]
Contents
[hide]
1 Shannon and Weaver
2 Berlo
3 Schramm
4 Barnlund
5 Constructionist
6 Linear
7 Interactive/convergence
8 Communication theory framework
9 Ontology
10 Epistemology
11 Axiology
12 Some realms of communication and their theories
13 Notes
14 References
Shannon and Weaver[edit]
Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver were engineers that worked for Bell Telephone Labs in the United States. Their goal was to make sure that the telephone cables and radio waves were working at the maximum efficiency. Therefore, they developed the Shannon–Weaver model which had an intention to expand a mathematical theory of communication.[6] The Shannon–Weaver model was developed in 1949 which is referred as the 'mother of all models'.[7] The model is well accepted as a main initial model for Communication Studies which has grown since then.[8]
As well, the Shannon–Weaver model was designed to mirror the functioning of radio and telephone technology. Their initial model consisted of four primary parts: sender, message, channel, and receiver. The sender was the part of a telephone a person speaks into, the channel was the telephone itself, and the receiver was the part of the phone through which one can hear the person on the other end of the line. Shannon and Weaver also recognized that there may often be static or background sounds that interfere with the process of the other partner in a telephone conversation; they referred to this as noise. Certain types of background sounds can also indicate the absence of a signal.[1]
The original model of Shannon and Weaver has five elements: information source, transmitter, channel, receiver, and destination. To illustrate the process of the communication the first step is the information source where the information is stored. Next, in order to send the information, the message is encoded into signals, so it can travel to its destination. After the message is encoded, it goes through the channel which the signals are adapted for the transmission. In addition, the channel carried the noise course which is any interference that might happen to lead to the signal receive a different information from the source. After the channel, the message arrives in the receiver step where the message reconstruct (decode) from the signal. Finally, the message arrives at the destination.[6]
In a simple model, often referred to as the transmission model or standard view of communication, information or content (e.g. a message in natural language) is sent in some form (as spoken language) from an emissor/ sender/ encoder to a destination/ receiver/ decoder. According to this common communication-related conception, communication is viewed as a means of sending and receiving information. The strengths of this model are its simplicity, generality, and quantifiability. The mathematicians Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver structured this model on the basis of the following elements:
An information source, which produces a message.
A transmitter, which encodes the message into signals
A channel, for which signals are adapted for transmission
A receiver, which reconstructs the encoded message from a sequence of received signals and decodes it.
An information destination, where the message arrives.
Shannon and Weaver argued that this concept entails three levels of problems for communication:
The technical problem: how accurately can the message be transmitted?
The semantic problem: how precisely is the meaning 'conveyed'?
The effectiveness problem: how effectively does the received meaning affect behavior?
Daniel Chandler criticizes the transmission model in the following terms:[9]
It assumes that communicators are isolated individuals.
It makes no allowance for differing purposes.
It makes no allowance for differing interpretations.
It makes no allowance for unequal power relationships.
Berlo[edit]
In 1960, David Berlo expanded Shannon and Weaver's 1949 linear model of communication and created the Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver (SMCR) Model of Communication.[10] The SMCR Model of Communication separated the model into clear parts and has been expanded upon by other scholars.
The Berlo's communication process is a simple application for communication of person-to-person which include communication source, encoder, message, channel, decoder, and communication receiver. [11] In addition, David Berlo presented some factors that influence the communication process between two people. The factors include communication skills, awareness level, social system, cultural system, and attitude.[12]
The Berlo's Model of Communication process starts at the source. This is the part where determine the communication skills, attitude, knowledge, social system, and culture of the people involved in the communication. After the message is developed which is elements in a set of symbols. [12] Then the encoder step beginning. The encoder process is where the motor skills take place by speaking or writing. [11] The message goes through the channel which carries the message by hearing, seeing, touching, smelling, or tasting.[3] Then the decoder process takes place. In this process, the receiver interpreter the message with her or him sensory skills. Finally, the communication receiver gets the whole message understood.[11]

Schramm[edit]
Communication is usually described along a few major dimensions: Message (what type of things are communicated), source / emissor / sender / encoder (by whom), form (in which form), channel (through which medium), destination / receiver / target / decoder (to whom), and Receiver. Wilbur Schramm (1954) also indicated that we should also examine the impact that a message has (both desired and undesired) on the target of the message.[13] Between parties, communication includes acts that confer knowledge and experiences, give advice and commands, and ask questions. These acts may take many forms, in one of the various manners of communication. The form depends on the abilities of the group communicating. Together, communication content and form make messages that are sent towards a destination. The target can be oneself, another person or being, another entity (such as a corporation or group of beings).
Communication can be seen as processes of information transmission governed by three levels of semiotic rules:
Syntactic (formal properties of signs and symbols),
Pragmatic (concerned with the relations between signs/expressions and their users) and
Semantic (study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent).
Therefore, communication is social interaction where at least two interacting agents share a common set of signs and a common set of semiotic rules. This commonly held rule in some sense ignores autocommunication, including intrapersonal communication via diaries or self-talk, both secondary phenomena that followed the primary acquisition of communicative competences within social interactions.
Barnlund[edit]
In light of these weaknesses, Barnlund (1970) proposed a transactional model of communication.[14] The basic premise of the transactional model of communication is that individuals are simultaneously engaging in the sending and receiving of messages.
In a slightly more complex form, a sender and a receiver are linked reciprocally. This second attitude of communication, referred to as the constitutive model or constructionist view, focuses on how an individual communicates as the determining factor of the way the message will be interpreted. Communication is viewed as a conduit; a passage in which information travels from one individual to another and this information becomes separate from the communication itself. A particular instance of communication is called a speech act. The sender's personal filters and the receiver's personal filters may vary depending upon different regional traditions, cultures, or gender; which may alter the intended meaning of message contents. In the presence of "noise" on the transmission channel (air, in this case), reception and decoding of content may be faulty, and thus the speech act may not achieve the desired effect. One problem with this encode-transmit-receive-decode model is that the processes of encoding and decoding imply that the sender and receiver each possess something that functions as a [code-book], and that these two code books are, at the very least, similar if not identical. Although something like code books is implied by the model, they are nowhere represented in the model, which creates many conceptual difficulties.
Theories of co-regulation describe communication as a creative and dynamic continuous process, rather than a discrete exchange of information. Canadian media scholar Harold Innis had the theory that people use different types of media to communicate and which one they choose to use will offer different possibilities for the shape and durability of society.[15][page needed] His famous example of this is using ancient Egypt and looking at the ways they built themselves out of media with very different properties stone and papyrus. Papyrus is what he called 'Space Binding'. it made possible the transmission of written orders across space, empires and enables the waging of distant military campaigns and colonial administration. The other is stone and 'Time Binding', through the construction of temples and the pyramids can sustain their authority generation to generation, through this media they can change and shape communication in their society.[15][page needed]
Constructionist[edit]
There is an additional working definition of communication to consider[example needed] that authors like Richard A. Lanham (2003) and as far back as Erving Goffman (1959) have highlighted. This is a progression from Lasswell's attempt to define human communication through to this century and revolutionized into the constructionist model. Constructionists believe that the process of communication is in itself the only messages that exist. The packaging can not be separated from the social and historical context from which it arose, therefore the substance to look at in communication theory is style for Richard Lanham and the performance of self for Erving Goffman.
Lanham chose to view communication as the rival to the over encompassing use of CBS model (which pursued to further the transmission model). CBS model argues that clarity, brevity, and sincerity are the only purpose to prose discourse, therefore communication. Lanham wrote: "If words matter too, if the whole range of human motive is seen as animating prose discourse, then rhetoric analysis leads us to the essential questions about prose style" (Lanham 10). This is saying that rhetoric and style are fundamentally important; they are not errors to what we actually intend to transmit. The process which we construct and deconstruct meaning deserves analysis.
Erving Goffman sees the performance of self as the most important frame to understand communication. Goffman wrote: "What does seem to be required of the individual is that he learn enough pieces of expression to be able to 'fill in' and manage, more or less, any part that he is likely to be given" (Goffman 73), highlighting the significance of expression.
The truth in both cases is the articulation of the message and the package as one. The construction of the message from social and historical context is the seed as is the pre-existing message is for the transmission model. Therefore, any look into communication theory should include the possibilities drafted by such great scholars as Richard A. Lanham and Goffman that style and performance is the whole process. lun
Communication stands so deeply rooted in human behaviors and the structures of society that scholars have difficulty thinking of it while excluding social or behavioral events.[weasel words] Because communication theory remains a relatively young field of inquiry and integrates itself with other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, and sociology, one probably cannot yet[update] expect a consensus conceptualization of communication across disciplines.[weasel words]
Communication Model Terms as provided by Rothwell (11-15):
Noise; interference with effective transmission and reception of a message.
For example;
physical noise or external noise which are environmental distractions such as poorly heated rooms, startling sounds, appearances of things, music playing some where else, and someone talking really loudly near you.
physiological noise are biological influences that distract you from communicating competently such as sweaty palms, pounding heart, butterfly in the stomach, induced by speech anxiety, or feeling sick, exhausted at work, the ringing noise in your ear, being really hungry, and if you have a runny nose or a cough.
psychological noise are the preconception bias and assumptions such as thinking someone who speaks like a valley girl is dumb, or someone from a foreign country can’t speak English well so you speak loudly and slowly to them.
semantic noise are word choices that are confusing and distracting such as using the word tri-syllabic instead of three syllables.
Sender; the initiator and encoder of a message
Receiver; the one that receives the message (the listener) and the decoder of a message
Decode; translates the sender's spoken idea/message into something the receiver understands by using their knowledge of language from personal experience.
Encode; puts the idea into spoken language while putting their own meaning into the word/message.
Channel; the medium through which the message travels such as through oral communication (radio, television, phone, in person) or written communication (letters, email, text messages)
Feedback; the receiver's verbal and nonverbal responses to a message such as a nod for understanding (nonverbal), a raised eyebrow for being confused (nonverbal), or asking a question to clarify the message (verbal).
Message; the verbal and nonverbal components of language that is sent to the receiver by the sender which conveys an idea.
Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things. -"Language is the source of meaning". -Meaning arises out of the social interaction people have with each other.
-Meaning is not inherent in objects but it is negotiated through the use of language, hence the term symbolic interactionism. As human beings, we have the ability to name things. Symbols, including names, are arbitrary signs. By talking with others, we ascribe meaning to words and develop a universe of discourse A symbol is a stimulus that has a learned/shared meaning and a value for people Significant symbols can be nonverbal as well as linguistic.
-Negative responses can consequently reduce a person to nothing. -Our expectations evoke responses that confirm what we originally anticipated, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Linear[edit]
This is a one-way model to communicate with others. It consists of the sender encoding a message and channeling it to the receiver in the presence of noise. In this model there is no feedback or response which may allow for a continuous exchange of information (F.N.S. Palma, 1993).
The linear model was first introduced by Shannon & Weaver in 1949. In the linear communication model, the message travels one direction from the start point to the endpoint. In other words, once the sender sends the message to the receiver the communication process ends. Many communications online use the linear communication model. For example, when you send an email, post a blog, or share something on social media. However, the linear model does not explain many other forms of communication including face-to-face conversation.[16]
Interactive/convergence[edit]
It is two linear models stacked on top of each other. The sender channels a message to the receiver and the receiver then becomes the sender and channels a message to the original sender. This model has added feedback, indicating that communication is not a one way but a two way process. It also has "field of experience" which includes our cultural background, ethnicity geographic location, extent of travel, and general personal experiences accumulated over the course of your lifetime. Draw backs – there is feedback but it is not simultaneous.
The Interactive Model.
For example, – instant messaging. The sender sends an IM to the receiver, then the original sender has to wait for the IM from the original receiver to react. Or a question/answer session where you just ask a question then you get an answer.
Communication theory framework[edit]
Main article: Theory of communication
Communication theory can be seen from one of the following viewpoints:
Mechanistic: This view[who?] considers communication as a perfect transaction of a message from the sender to the receiver. (as seen in the diagram above)
Psychological: This view[who?] considers communication as the act of sending a message to a receiver, and the feelings and thoughts of the receiver upon interpreting the message.
Social Constructionist (Symbolic Interactionist): This view considers communication to be the product of the interactants sharing and creating meaning. The Constructionist View can also be defined as, how you say something determines what the message is. The Constructionist View assumes that "truth" and "ideas" are constructed or invented through the social process of communication. Robert T. Craig saw the Constructionist View or the constitutive view as it's called in his article, as "…an ongoing process that symbolically forms and re-forms our personal identities." (Craig, 125). The other view of communication, the Transmission Model, sees communication as robotic and computer-like. The Transmission Model sees communication as a way of sending or receiving messages and the perfection of that. But, the Constructionist View sees communications as, "…in human life, info does not behave as simply as bits in an electronic stream. In human life, information flow is far more like an electric current running from one landmine to another" (Lanham, 7). The Constructionist View is a more realistic view of communication[opinion] because it involves the interacting of human beings and the free sharing of thoughts and ideas. Daniel Chandler looks to prove that the Transmission Model is a lesser way of communicating by saying "The transmission model is not merely a gross over-simplification but a dangerously misleading representation of the nature of human communication" (Chandler, 2). Humans do not communicate simply as computers or robots so that's why it's essential to truly understand the Constructionist View of Communication well. We do not simply send facts and data to one another, but we take facts and data and they acquire meaning through the process of communication, or through interaction with others.
Systemic: This view[who?] considers communication to be the new messages created via "through-put", or what happens as the message is being interpreted and re-interpreted as it travels through people.
Critical: This view considers communication as a source of power and oppression of individuals and social groups.[17]
Inspection of a particular theory on this level will provide a framework on the nature of communication as seen within the confines of that theory.
Theories can also be studied and organized according to the ontological, epistemological, and axiological framework imposed by the theorist.
Ontology[edit]
Ontology essentially poses the question of what, exactly, the theorist is examining. One must consider the very nature of reality. The answer usually falls in one of three realms depending on whether the theorist sees the phenomena through the lens of a realist, nominalist, or social constructionist. Realist perspective views the world objectively, believing that there is a world outside of our own experience and cognitions. Nominalists see the world subjectively, claiming that everything outside of one's cognitions is simply names and labels. Social constructionists straddle the fence between objective and subjective reality, claiming that reality is what we create together.[unbalanced opinion?][neutrality is disputed]
Epistemology[edit]
Epistemology is an examination of the approaches and beliefs which inform particular modes of study of phenomena and domains of expertise. In positivist approaches to epistemology, objective knowledge is seen as the result of the empirical observation and perceptual experience. In the history of science, empirical evidence collected by way of pragmatic-calculation and the scientific method is believed to be the most likely to reflect truth in the findings. Such approaches are meant to predict a phenomenon. Subjective theory holds that understanding is based on situated knowledge, typically found using interpretative methodology such as ethnography and also interviews. Subjective theories are typically developed to explain or understand phenomena in the social world.[citation needed]
Axiology[edit]
Axiology is concerned with how values inform research and theory development.[18] Most communication theory is guided by one of three axiological approaches.[citation needed] The first approach recognizes that values will influence theorists' interests but suggests that those values must be set aside once actual research begins. Outside replication of research findings is particularly important in this approach to prevent individual researchers' values from contaminating their findings and interpretations.[19] The second approach rejects the idea that values can be eliminated from any stage of theory development. Within this approach, theorists do not try to divorce their values from inquiry. Instead, they remain mindful of their values so that they understand how those values contextualize, influence or skew their findings.[20] The third approach not only rejects the idea that values can be separated from research and theory, but rejects the idea that they should be separated. This approach is often adopted by critical theorists who believe that the role of communication theory is to identify oppression and produce social change. In this axiological approach, theorists embrace their values and work to reproduce those values in their research and theory development.[21]
Some realms of communication and their theories[edit]
message production: Constructivist Theory, Action Assembly Theory
message processing: Elaboration Likelihood Model, Inoculation theory
discourse and interaction: Speech Acts Theory, Coordinated Management of Meaning
developing relationships: Uncertainty Reduction Theory, Social Penetration Theory, Predicted Outcome Value Theory
ongoing relationships: Relational Systems Theory, Relational Dialectics
organizational: Structuration Theory, Unobtrusive and Concertive Control Theory
small group: Functional Theory, Symbolic Convergence Theory
media processing and effects: Social Cognitive Theory, Uses and Gratifications Theory
media and society: Agenda Setting, Information deficit model, Spiral of silence, Symbolic Convergence Theory
culture: Speech Codes Theory, Face-saving Theory
making social worlds: Coordinated Management of Meaning, Symbolic Interactionism
science communication: Gateway Belief Model
Notes[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press
Jump up ^ Craig 1999.
^ Jump up to: a b Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication; an introduction to theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Claude E Shannon, W. W. (1949)
Jump up ^ Schulz, Peter. Cobley, Paul. (2013). Theories and Models of Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 2013.
Jump up ^ Qing-Lan Chen, Chiou-Shuei Wei, Mei-Yao Huang and Chiu-Chi Wei. (2013) A model for project communication medium evaluation and selection.
^ Jump up to: a b Chandler Daniel, The Transmission Model of Communication. http://transcriptions-2008.english.ucsb.edu/archive/courses/warner/english197/Schedule_files/Chandler/Transmission.model_files/trans.htm (1994)
Jump up ^ Erik Hollnagel, David D. Woods. Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering. CRC Press. 2005
Jump up ^ Fiske, John. Introduction to Communication Studies. London: Routledge (Chapter 1, 'Communication Theory' is a good introduction to this topic). (1982)
Jump up ^ Chandler, Daniel (1994). The Transmission Model of Communication. University of Western Australia. Retrieved 11.06.2011. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
Jump up ^ Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
^ Jump up to: a b c Ann, Bette. Berlo's Communication Process Model as Applied to the Behavioral Theories of Maslow, Herzberg, and McGrego. Stead Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 389-394 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/254868
^ Jump up to: a b Sluková, Petra Zia. Studies of Information and Knowledge Management in he European Context: No. 5 Communication of Information Reg. No: CZ.1.07/2.2.00/07.0284 OP: Education for Competitiveness Support area. 2.2 University Education Realization: VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, Faculty of Economics, separate unit: Business Academy and HPS Valašské Meziříčí
Jump up ^ Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The process and effects of communication (pp. 3-26). Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Jump up ^ Barnlund, D. C. (2008). A transactional model of communication. In. C. D. Mortensen (Eds.), Communication theory (2nd ed., pp47-57). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction.
^ Jump up to: a b Wark, McKenzie (1997). The Virtual Republic. Allen & Unwin, St Leonards.
Jump up ^ McCornack, Steven. Ortiz, Joseph. Choice & Connections: An Introduction to Communication. (2017)
Jump up ^ Littlejohn, S.W. and Foss, K.A. (2008). Theories of human communication, 9th edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Jump up ^ Miller 2005.
Jump up ^ Miller 2005, p. 30.
Jump up ^ Miller 2005, pp. 30–31.
Jump up ^ Miller 2005, p. 31.
References[edit]
Craig, Robert T. (1999). "Communication Theory as a Field". Communication Theory. 9 (2): 119–161. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x. ISSN 1050-3293.
Miller, Katherine (2005). Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN 0-07-293794-7.
[hide]
v
t
e
Communication studies
Topics and
terminology
Biocommunication
Broadcasting
Communication
Computer-mediated communication
Conversation
History of communication
Information
Intercultural / Interpersonal / Intrapersonal communication
Journalism
Mass media
Meaning
Media ecology
Meta-communication
Models of communication
New media
Nonverbal communication
Propaganda
Reading
Speech
Symbol
Telecommunication
Text and conversation theory
Writing
Subfields
Communication design
Communication theory
Communicology
Crisis communication
Cross-cultural communication
Development communication
Discourse analysis
Environmental communication
Health communication
International communication
Mass communication
Media studies
Mediated cross-border communication
Organizational communication
Political communication
Risk communication
Science communication
Technical communication
Visual communication
Related fields
Conversation analysis
Critical theory
Cultural studies
Digital rhetoric
Film criticism
Heritage interpretation
Journalism
photojournalism
Linguistics
Philosophy of language
Political science
Pragmatics
Public relations
Rhetoric
Semiotics
Sociolinguistics
Sociology of culture
Theatre
Scholars
Adorno
Barthes
Bateson
Benjamin
Burke
Castells
Chomsky
Craig
Fisher
Flusser
Gerbner
Goffman
Habermas
Horkheimer
Huxley
Innis
Jakobson
Janis
Johnson
Kincaid
Lippman
Luhmann
Marcuse
McLuhan
Mead
Morgan
Ong
Packard
Peirce
Postman
Quebral
Richards
Rogers
Schramm
Tankard
Tannen
Wertheimer
Category
History
Journals
Organizations
Outline
Scholars
Templates
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Models_of_communication&oldid=838717775"
Categories:
Communication
Conceptual models
Human behavior
Linguistics
Human communication
Communication theory
Hidden categories:
CS1 errors: dates
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from August 2017
All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases
Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from October 2011
Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2006
All articles containing potentially dated statements
All articles with minor POV problems
Articles with minor POV problems from October 2011
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from October 2011
Articles with unsourced statements from June 2013
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
한국어
मराठी
Nederlands
Norsk
ភាសាខ្មែរ
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last edited on 28 April 2018, at 21:30.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: class style

values:
/wiki/Claude_Elwood_Shannon
mw-redirect
Claude Elwood Shannon

values:
/wiki/Bell_Laboratories
mw-redirect
Bell Laboratories

values:
/wiki/Theory_of_communication
mw-redirect
Theory of communication

values:
/wiki/Channel_(communications)
mw-redirect
Channel (communications)

values:
/wiki/Receiver_(radio)
mw-redirect
Receiver (radio)

values:
/wiki/Interpersonal_Communication
mw-redirect
Interpersonal Communication

values:
/wiki/Information_transmission
mw-redirect
Information transmission

values: This citation requires a reference to the specific page or range of pages in which the material appears. (August 2017)

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words
mw-redirect
Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

values:
noprint Inline-Template
margin-left:0.1em; white-space:nowrap;

values: plainlinks noexcerpt noprint asof-tag update

values: Edit section: Communication theory framework

values: The material near this tag possibly uses too-vague attribution or weasel words. (October 2011)

values: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

values:
/wiki/Robert_T._Craig_(scholar)
mw-redirect
Robert T. Craig (scholar)

values: This statement may be opinion presented as fact (October 2011)

values: noprint Inline-Template noprint Template-Opinion

values: The material near this tag seems to express a non-neutral point of view. (October 2011)

values: This statement is possibly biased. (October 2011)

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (October 2011)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (June 2013)

values:
/wiki/Critical_theorists
mw-redirect
Critical theorists

values: Edit section: Some realms of communication and their theories

values:
/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)
mw-redirect
Constructivism (learning theory)

values:
/wiki/Action_Assembly
mw-redirect
Action Assembly

values:
/wiki/Elaboration_Likelihood_Model
mw-redirect
Elaboration Likelihood Model

values:
/wiki/Speech_Acts_Theory
mw-redirect
Speech Acts Theory

values:
/wiki/Coordinated_Management_of_Meaning
mw-redirect
Coordinated Management of Meaning

values:
/wiki/Uncertainty_Reduction_Theory
mw-redirect
Uncertainty Reduction Theory

values:
/wiki/Social_Penetration_Theory
mw-redirect
Social Penetration Theory

values:
/wiki/Relational_Dialectics
mw-redirect
Relational Dialectics

values:
/wiki/Structuration_Theory
mw-redirect
Structuration Theory

values:
/wiki/Symbolic_Convergence_Theory
mw-redirect
Symbolic Convergence Theory

values:
/wiki/Social_Cognitive_Theory
mw-redirect
Social Cognitive Theory

values:
/wiki/Uses_and_Gratifications_Theory
mw-redirect
Uses and Gratifications Theory

values:
/wiki/Speech_Code_Theory
mw-redirect
Speech Code Theory

values:
/wiki/Face_Negotiation_Theory
mw-redirect
Face Negotiation Theory

values:
/wiki/Symbolic_Interactionism
mw-redirect
Symbolic Interactionism

values:
/wiki/Gateway_Belief_Model
mw-redirect
Gateway Belief Model

values:
nofollow
external free
http://www.jstor.org/stable/254868

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/1050-3293

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
/wiki/File:Encoding_communication.jpg
image
Encoding communication

values:
navbox-image
4
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values:
/wiki/Risk_communication
mw-redirect
Risk communication

values: Category:Communications and media organizations

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible expanded navbox-inner

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from August 2017

values: Category:All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases

values: Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from October 2011

values: Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2006

values: Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements

values: Category:All articles with minor POV problems

values: Category:Articles with minor POV problems from October 2011

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from October 2011

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from June 2013

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Models_of_communication
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: 커뮤니케이션 모형 – Korean

values: संवाद प्रतिमान – Marathi

values: វិធីសាស្រ្តក្នុងការទំនាក់ទំនង – Khmer

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Models_of_communication rootpage-Models_of_communication skin-vector action-view