Arif,
>All dominions in british commonwealth are thought to be countries and not
>protectorates though their leader is the Queen.
There is no question that they are different countries. This was
established by the 1931 convention that created the 'Commonwealth of
Nations' from the former dominions of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South
Africa and the Irish Free State (although Ireland never ratified the
decision and became a republic in 1937). Whilst the UK still retained the
theoretical right to pass certain legislation over these countries, these
rights were gradually abrogated over the years. Indeed, the Canada Act of
1980 and the Australia Acts of 1986 removed any remaining vestiges of
jurisdiction by the UK Parliament over these countries (I think this
happened much earlier for South Africa).
The fact that the UK (plus overseas territories) and twenty or so other
countries have the same head of state, is irrelevant to their status as
independent countries. Whilst it's true that certain other legal ties still
exist, such as right of appeal to the Privy Council (which is group of
advisors to the monarch who are drawn from the Commonwealth nations), the
decision to maintain such ties is up to each country in the same way that
countries choose to join the EU etc..
I would agree that some countries such as Monaco and the Vatican are not
truly independent as their continued existence depends on a treaty with
another country. In the case of Monaco, under the terms of a treaty signed
in (I believe) the 1920s, the incumbent monarch must produce a male heir to
the throne, otherwise the country will become part of France. In the case
of the Vatican, I believe that Italy is responsible for security (other
than the Papal Guard).
>We have assumed boundaries between the Germanys though they were only a
>zone divider.
Were West and East Germany not considered to be separate countries? I
thought this was established sometime in the early-1970s.
>Do you ever hear anybody saying that the MANY border is not a state border
>as Massachusetts is actually a commonwealth?
I'm not an expert on US constitutional issues, but I think this is more of
a semantic distinction rather than a legal one. The US constitution does
not mention commonwealths or republics, so presumably Massachusetts (and
Virginia for that matter) would not be part of the USA if they were not
considered to be states.
>Even Honk Kong was generally assumed to have a boundary with China even
>though much of it was leases
I think it actually had two boundaries. An international boundary
demarcated the sovereign territory (Hong Kong and Kowloon) that was
originally ceded in perpetuity, and I guess an administrative boundary
demarcated the New Territories and China proper.
Regards,
Kevin Meynell