Editing Associated state (section)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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