File talk:Supranational European Bodies.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

More comprehensive version:

TeraCard (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Übersetzungen / Translations[edit]

Bislang liegen folgende Übersetzungen vor:

SVG-Versionen:

PNG-Versionen:

(*) Update needed / folgende Ereignisse müssen noch eingearbeitet werden:

  • Estonia adopted the euro (1 January 2011)
  • Liechtenstein joined the Schengen Area (19 December 2011)

--Kolja21 (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing bodies[edit]

87.187.168.230 09:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these organizations include several non-European states: some of the Arab states, including most North African countries, are members of EBU, while the US, Canada, Mongolia and all of the -stans are members of OSCE. Neither are therefore really "European" organizations. SiBr4 (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add:

TeraCard (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine are members of en:CISFTA
F karlo (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As are Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, so the same comment I made above applies. I think the diagram would become very cluttered-up if we tried to include every single organization/agreement/treaty that any European state participates in (even if it is technically possible to create such a diagram). SiBr4 (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations and initiatives[edit]

Please add:

Monetary agreement label[edit]

The text "monetary agreement with EU" should be in the corner, not inside the "EU customs union" circle. F karlo (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

This image has not been updated and therefore it's historical. Can we assume it's accurate for 2010?--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that needs updating that wouldn't make it accurate as of now? SiBr4 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GUAM[edit]

Does GUAM still exist? I haven't heard anything about it for years. Probably it should be removed or replaced with Eastern Partnership. Hellerick (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's organization's page seems active, and seems to be listing current meetings/working groups, so forth. Aris Katsaris (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have prepared an expanded version of the diagram[edit]

I have prepared an expanded version of the diagram, which has not been uploaded to wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons) yet, but you can take a look at it at my Google+ post This uses the rectangles-with-rounded-corners (instead of ellipses) which I have already introduced at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_American_Bodies.svg and which allowed me to include several more intergovernmental organizations/alliances/groups/bodies, besides the ones already listed in the current diagram. Such are:

  • Nordic Council
  • Baltic Assembly
  • Visegrad group
  • Benelux
  • Common travel area
  • BSEC
  • Union State
  • Eurasian Economic Union

I plan to upload it (in its SVG form) with the coming of the next year -- (it becomes valid at that point in time, as Lithuania enters the eurozone). The thing I'd like feedback on is this: Should I upload it as an upgrade of this current picture (alongside with the update to the template with the corresponding image map) or should I upload it as a new picture? The last thing I want is a revert war because some people won't like the new style and others will. At the same time the automatic answer that some people will give as a solution (to upload it as a new picture, and a new template with a new image map) means that two separate diagrams will need be maintained, and perhaps some people will do more numerous (if smaller-scale) revert wars in a variety of articles. Personally I'd prefer to upload it as a replacement, but I'm not too irked at the idea of uploading as a new picture.

Give feedback, please. I will also link to this discussion from the corresponding template discussion in the English wikipedia. Aris Katsaris (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the rectangular boxes are much clearer. A potential complication is what happens when Kyrgyzstan, a non-european state, joins the EEU as is likely in the near future? I think we should restrict this particular image to bodies restricted to europe, so perhaps the EEU should be excluded. TDL (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Kyrgyzstan joins the Eurasian Economic Union, I would indeed remove the organization from the diagram -- there exists [1] to list the organizations in the post-Soviet space, regardless of continent. Aris Katsaris (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably just leave the eurasian bodies off from the start, since while they currently only include european states they are by definition not purely european bodies. But I won't argue as long as it is removed when Kyrgyzstan joins (which could well happen even before 1 Jan: [2]). TDL (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One comment: will the Eurasian Customs Union continue to exist alongside the Eurasian Economic Union? TDL (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, I think it's just the "Eurasian Economic Community" that will cease function. I may of course be mistaken. Aris Katsaris (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen sources that say the EEU will replace the EEC (ie [3]), but it is not 100% clear to me what will happen. I've started a discussion at en:Talk:Eurasian_Customs_Union#Status when the EEU comes into force to see if anyone else knows the answer. TDL (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the EEU consists of 5 member states now. -- Framhein (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not NPOV - Russia-centered body removed[edit]

I object to the removal of the Customs Union of Belarus/Kazakhstan/Russia while the EEU is not added.

Reason: This is POV pushing.

Cyprus is outside geographic Europe too, but EU-centered bodies that include Cyprus are left in.

Solution: Formalize criteria to reduce chances for biased edits.

Allow all bodies that only include countries that

  • A) have some land in geographic Europe [this clause allows bodies that include Turkey (Asia), Russia (Asia), Spain (Africa), France (South America) which all have territory outside geographic Europe]
  • or B) have at least 20 member states and consist to 90% of countries that are located in geographic Europe [this clause allows EU even if Cyprus is completely in geographic Asia]

User:Aris Katsaris, what do you think?

91.9.121.26 16:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Th difference is that the EEU does not even claim to be a European body. It claims to be a Eurasian body, hence the name. Yes the EU includes states which are not geographically within Europe, but Cyprus is often included in Europe for cultural reasons and the EU claims to be a european organization.
If you want to formalize this by setting a 90% cutoff, that's fine with me. But the EEU would already miss that due to Armenia's membership. TDL (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the updated diagram, I don't care what the EEU 'claims' or not, those are ways to include bias, not remove it. My criteria were simple: The list of European countries is already given at en:Europe. The diagram includes the organizations which I can fit and whose membership is composed *entirely* of those countries -- I didn't remove or add a single country's flag. I didn't include Eurasian Economic Union for the exact same reason that I didn't include en:NATO, or en:G-7, or en:OECD or en:OSCE. Because none of these organization are composed strictly of European countries. The criteria are much more strict, and much more ensuring of NPOV when the cutoff limit is at 100%, not with some nonsensical '90%'. Aris Katsaris (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you see the discussion above, this has already been discussed. Before Kyrgyzstan joined, I did include the Eurasian Economic Union and the Customs Union in an earlier version of the updated diagram which you can still see at [4] -- but now that Kyrgyzstan has joined the Eurasian Economic Union, it means that the Eurasian Economic Union is no longer a strictly European organization, and only strictly European organizations have ever been included in this diagram. As for the "Customs Union of Belarus/Kazakhstan/Russia", this was again discussed (seriously, just see what people have discussed already) -- since January 1, it was folded into the Eurasian Customs Union, so again it's no longer fitting to include in the diagram. Please don't accuse me of bias when it's you who are exhibiting one - I neither added nor removed a single country's *flag* from the diagram, and it's the organizations' memberships that determines whether the *organization* will be included. Your accusation of bias is insulting and unfair. Aris Katsaris (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wanna chime in that this were POV pushing, but I agree that the EEU should be included. Firstly, Kyrgyzstan won't acceed until 1 May. Secondly, even if it does acceed, the EEU remains an organization mainly centered in Eastern Europe. BSEC isn't thrown out because of Armenia either. But even more, it is highly irritating that EEU is missing even though all of its member states are on the imagemap. I came here because I expected that EEU has not yet been added and wanted to add it to the SVG. Then I saw this talk and will of course leave it to be further discussed. Regards and thanks for the otherwise great work! Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the EEU remains an organization mainly centered in Eastern Europe" - Not really. According to the figures at en:List of European countries by area, even without Kyrgyzstan the EEU only has ~20% of its territory in Europe. TDL (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Armenia's flag has always been included in the diagram. Kyrgyzstan's flag has never been included. As for Kyrgyzstan not joining until May, that's the first I hear of it, as earlier versions of the Eurasian Economic Union didn't include this tidbit -- this news means that I'd be willing to add the Eurasian Economic Union (without Kyrgyzstan) back in the diagram, as long as it's quite well understood and agreed by all, that it will be removed, the moment Kyrgyzstan joins. Aris Katsaris (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems weird that the scheme includes de-facto defunct Union State (and GUAM), but omits the Eurasian Union. I think one should be replaced with another. Hellerick (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It omits the Eurasian Union, because the Eurasian Union includes Kyrgyzstan, a country which is not and has never been part of the diagram, as it's not European. I don't know how much more clear than that I can make my reply than this. Can you explain in simple words why you feel it should include the Eurasian Union, when it's not including NATO or the Turkic Council or OECD or OSCE either? Aris Katsaris (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, NPOV is not a Commons police. Therefore, you can do another image according to another POV, upload it under a different name, and try to convince all projects to use your image instead of the current one.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the EEU/ECU's inclusion is important. It covers more then one third of Europe. Approximately the same area as the EU (4 million square kilometres). Along with the EU, it's paramount to European Integration. Yes, it isn't entirely "European", however Europe is a geographic region, not a political. In my opinion, we should focus on it's significance on integration in Europe, not what it does and doesn't include. Rob984 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the UN covers 100% of Europe, larger than the EU and EEU combined. That doesn't make it a supranational European body. The Union for the Mediterranean has a larger European area than the EU, but is not included here because it is not a European body. Additionally, NATO is paramount to European integration, and is largely European, but is not a European specific body.
This image, as the title is explains, is for "Supranational European Bodies", not bodies which happen to have some European members. Transcontinental integration falls outside the scope of this image. European integration is a subset of Eurasian integration, but obviously the reverse is not true. If someone wants to make an image on Eurasian integration, including both the EU and EEU, they should create a new image with that scope. TDL (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike NATO, the UN, and the Union for the Mediterranean, the EEU is a economic union. The article W:European integration is about "the process of industrial, political, legal, economic, social and cultural integration of states". However, I agree that for articles such as W:Eurozone, a digram without Eurasian integration is more appropriate. So I maybe a separate diagram for W:European integration could be created? I could possibly create one based on this one but I'm not sure. Rob984 (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New version[edit]

I liked the original version with circles. Major changes should be uploaded with a new file name. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had started a discussion above a week earlier about this exact matter, but nobody objected. Aris Katsaris (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Request[edit]

I request merging + into this one by adding the respective countries, organizations and treaties into this one, repointing links to the others to this one and deleting the others thereafter. RobiH (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose adding to this diagram any country not listed in en:Europe, or any organization that includes any country not listed in en:Europe. Once that happens, once we've violated the strict criterion of only including European countries and only including organizations with 100% European membership, everyone will want to add more and more organizations, until we pretty much include every organization in the world as long as it involves any European nation whatsoever. Aris Katsaris (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding OSCE and SEPA? RobiH (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to anyone adding SEPA, and I may well do it myself when I find the time and mood to update the diagram again (as Christmas holidays have ended for me, that may be a while though). But the OSCE includes countries like the USA, Turkmenistan and Mongolia. So my objection stands for that. Aris Katsaris (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco is Schengen Member[edit]

Monaco is Schengen Member. RobiH (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco isn't a party to the Schengen Agreement. See [5]. France administers the borders of Monaco as if it were a Schengen party. TDL (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flags[edit]

Could please anyone tell me where the flags used in Wikimedia Euler diagrams can be found?A.h. king (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Project Nuvola 2.0+/Flags and Category:Nuvola flag icons contain the Nuvola-style flag icons used for this and similar diagrams. SiBr4 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DCFTA[edit]

I know, it is hard to put more information in the Euler diagram but the en:Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) is missing. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike EFTA or CEFTA, the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas are three separate free trade areas formed by three separate agreements. They are bilateral agreements between the EU, and Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine individually. There are other free trade agreements between European states, such as between EFTA and Ukraine. It wont be possible to show all of these obviously. Rob984 (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planned additions[edit]

I'm planning an update to the diagram, which will add five more groupings, en:EU Med Group, en:NB8, the en:Craiova Group, and also a grouping for the Switzerland-Liechtenstein Customs&Monetary union, and also a grouping for those countries which have open borders with Schengen (similarly to the alread existing "monetary agreement with the EU"). The planned update can be currently seen in its png form at https://www.facebook.com/aris.katsaris/posts/10211171378734305 I've unfortunately been unable to fit in some more groupings that might have been nice to have like e.g. the en:Central European Initiative or en:SEPA or the en:South-East European Cooperation Process or the en:Southeast European Cooperative Initiative. The diagram's already a bit on the crowded side, and further additions would probably require either a more drastic redesign, or at the very least an expansion in dimensions which I wasn't ready to do at the moment... Please go see the diagram at the facebook link provided and let me know if you have objections to me making the change indicated, or if you approve. I've also made a similar question to the english wikipedia talk page, and will leave about a week's duration for the discussion. Aris Katsaris (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed you comment. Here are my thoughts: Regional groups which just host summits aren't really international bodies, they're just forums for discussion. Cooperation doesn't even occur within the framework of the group, because it isn't a permanent organisation. I think NB8, EU Med, and Craiova Group are not helpful additions, and neither are the others you suggested. And also, since your choosing to include only the ones which fit nicely into the diagram, it makes it more arbitrary. I recommend just sticking with permanent organisations. Rob984 (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth: the 20170311T2200 version reports 988 errors in the SVG code. Richard 08:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Dependencies etc.[edit]

While this diagram will need to be updated when and if the UK actually leaves the EU in 2019 anyway, it should include some associated country-like entities, namely the Channel Islands (Guernsey and Jersey) and the Isle of Man (which have ISO 3166 codes and flags). The CIs are outside the VAT area, but inside the customs union, while IoM is inside both. All three islands take part in the EU freedom of movement of goods but not labour, services or capital. Otherwise their memberships are governed by the UK as far as I know. — Christoph Päper 08:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — Christoph Päper 08:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supranational?[edit]

Sorry but there is nothing "supranational" in there. All these organizations are "intergovernmental". File name is misleading. --E4024 (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One does not exclude the other. Supranational, according to the Cambridge Dictionary:
involving more than one country, or having power or authority that is greater than that of single countries
The groups depicted all involve more than one country. Richard 10:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit update[edit]

I appreciate the update to this diagram, thank you @Hogweard: . As I understand it, for the "transition period" of 2020, the UK is within the Council of Europe. Isn't it also considered provisionally still within the EEA and the Customs Union until the end of 2020? Cnbrb (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. Britain is not out of the Council of Europe: that's quite separate from the EU. We are out of the EU and the EEA as of 11 pm tonight, but for the 11-month period will follow the customs rules etc of the EU, so it is a sort of quasi-membership but not actual membership. The UK is indeed in a temporary customs union, if not a member of the EU nor EEA. Getting that complexity in only to have to change it again in eleven months' time may be too much though!Hogweard (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, complexity is all the rage at the moment! I think diagram is a great illustration but it should be as accurate as possible. Maybe extend the EEA and CU boxes with projecting bits surrounded by a dotted line to go around the UK flag? That would avoid having to move anything else around. You could add a small annotation "until 2021" for clarity, and then revert to the current version at the end of December (unless Boris surprises us by joining EFTA!). Cnbrb (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey isn't in the EU's Customs Union proper. Definitely shouldn't show Turkey in but the UK outside. A dotted line perhaps around both of them. Rob984 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you mean because Turkey is joined to the CU via a bilateral agreement rather than formally a part of it? But according to the European Union Customs Union article, that also presents a problem with San Marino and Andorra. But the Union Jack position is definitely misleading at the moment. Cnbrb (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Rob984: for updating the diagram. That looks so much better. It's a slight pity Common Travel Area has to be abbreviated to fit. Query: is the UK not in the EEA for the duration of the 2020 agreement? I had understood that it was. Cnbrb (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good. The customs union between the UK and the EU lasts until 31 December 2020: it can be revisited then (and "CTI" can be expanded if the bubble is then rotated to horizontal).
As to the query - no, the UK is not part of the EEA during the transition, though the Withdrawal Agreement and the EFTA Continuity Agreement bridge the gap as if it were. Hogweard (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So de facto rather than de jure? Anyway, thanks for your edits. Cnbrb (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlinks[edit]

I have prepared a version with hyperlinks to countries and organisations shown in the diagram, and given the country names as link titles that show up as tooltips (on desktop browsers at least) which ought to help if people don't recognise the flags. Since it's an SVG file and not a wiki page, using wiki markup is not possible, so I used the full URLs of each page on the desktop version of the English Wikipedia. If someone knows a better way to handle the links, please let me know. I've put it on Google Drive for now (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_VTHSyEbnBKzNCfzrKBbwRqGglvlvnF2/view?usp=sharing sadly you have to download the file and then open the downloaded copy in your browser manually). If there are no objections I'll upload it as a revision of this page. Birkett (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of North Macedonia into BSEC box[edit]

About one month ago, I myself made a suggestion in North Macedonia's (NM from now on) English Wikipedia article's talk page, about the fact that such article didn't state NM was part of BSEC (NM joined it 1 year ago). The suggestion was accepted and the article was modified by a user with extended-confirmed-protection editing rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia <<A unitary parliamentary constitutional republic, North Macedonia is a member of the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the World Bank, OSCE, CEFTA, BSEC and the WTO.>>

For this reason, here I'd like to suggest reordering the diagram in order that NM would be included in BSEC's box.

I made a (very silly) draft using Paint (sorry, my editing skills don't go further...), with black marks (crosses and arrows) pointing the boxes/flags that would need to be enlarged or moved. No need to say there may be many more fashioned ways to do it, it's just an example. Sharing it here through a GDrive link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NgMmBJX5kqINI9gu0zVNnLTNuS5SfU56/view?usp=sharing

Aviracoc (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo[edit]

Kosovo not in Council of Europe[edit]

Kosovo is not in the Council of Europe, has only applied for membership, please correct accordingly. 2A02:8071:B686:FAC0:8D25:3A7A:E465:4AA8 20:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo flag[edit]

Why is the UN flag being used for Kosovo since 13 July 2013, @Danlaycock: ? — Christoph Päper 09:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Crissov: Because technically Kosovo isn’t a member of CEFTA, the UNMIK is a party to the agreement on behalf of Kosovo. I think, however, that because this doesn’t have any practical consequences and because Kosovo itself is a member of the European Political Community, the flag of Kosovo should be used instead. Brainiac242 (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could that please be implemented? It is very confusing to see the United Nations Organization be part of a European community... - TheGlobetrotter (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia missing from Schengen and Eurozone[edit]

Croatia joined Schengen and the eurozone on 1.1.2023. It's 10 days later and it's still not fixed. 88.207.118.55 18:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done This has been added on 31 December already: [6]. — Christoph Päper 09:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing BSEC[edit]

I don’t think BSEC should be included in this diagram. The members of BSEC aren’t integrated with each other in any meaningful way, it is just another regional organization “fostering cooperation” and “promoting dialogue between its members”. If we include it, we’d have to include countless other organizations like it. The CBSS, for example, does basically the same, but for countries near the Baltic Sea instead of the Black Sea. Brainiac242 (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary agreement with the EU[edit]

The monetary agreement with the EU of the micro states Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican is not really a supranational body. It would make more sense to encircle a) Vatican and San Marino with Italy, b) Monaco with France and c) Liechtenstein with Switzerland, since they all form unions of several kinds. They (less LI) should be part of the Eurozone in this diagram, because they are recognized members, unlike Montenegro and Kosovo. — Christoph Päper 08:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Supranational_European_Bodies.svg&oldid=746276829"