Which fully recognized United Nations member country will be the first one to stop existing?
1k
2029
42%
Israel
25%
Kiribati
5%
North Korea
3%
Other
3%
Tuvalu
2%
Belarus
1.6%
Libya
1.4%
Ukraine
1.3%
Kuwait
1.2%
Nepal
1.2%
Syria
1.2%
South Africa
1.2%
South Korea
1%
Russia
1%
Serbia
1%
Kenya

Market open until it happens

If two countries join at the same time in an evenhanded relationship, they will both resolve 50-50 if they both cease existing.

If a country gets annexed and loses control of all its territory, it will depend if it is still recognized by the UN and/or has a functioning government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:
bought Ṁ10 Israel NO

So, to be clear, a country splitting doesn't count as "stop existing"? Example: Sudan splitting into Sudan and South Sudan.

@JaesonBooker no since the original is still represented at UN even though the new one is also recognized

@strutheo Following your current resolution criteria--I'm trying to understand and perhaps improve the market--which was the previous country that ceased to exist?

@GazDownright yugoslavia / czechoslovakia maybe?

@strutheo Oops, I made it into a quiz, that wasn't my intention. Good call, Yuogslavia seems quite clear cut. (Czechoslovakia, too).

(duplicate, resolves NO)

This is a duplicate response; “Maldives” is already an answer.

@lisamarsh Huh, it didn't come up in the search bar when I typed it in :(

Does "stop existing" mean "stop being a member of the UN" or does it mean "'country' no longer controls any territory."

The proviso that a country losing control of its territory doesn't count if it remains a UN member seems to point to the former, but is not quite what "stop existing" would mean in the typical sense.

If a country is expelled from or voluntarily leaves the UN, but it still exists and has control over (at least some of) its claimed territory (e.g. Taiwan), does that count?

@js ill reword it

if they leave the UN this will count, since they no longer exist as a full UN member

if they lose territory but still recognized as a UN member, this will not count

@strutheo I think this requires a rewording of the market title. Not being a full UN member does not equate to not existing. The resolution criterium you stipulate here is for a market named "Which is the next country to stop being a full UN member state."

Note: your criterium also means that Switzerland only came into existence in 2002 when it joined the UN.

@GazDownright ok might make another for stop being a member but still existing

Why is Northern Ireland an option? Northern Ireland doesn't have a seat in the UN.

@AlaaRanga i guess someone thinks they'll join then stop existing

@strutheo More fun hypotheticals ahoy: If Northern Ireland gets released by the UK and reunites with Ireland, does this not count as ceasing to exist? If it first gains independence and then joins Ireland, will it only then have ceased to exist? 😃

bought Ṁ1 Answer #2449a3d4454e YES

If several countries merge into a single country (with a single UN seat, etc), would the outcome be split between those countries equally?

@UnspecifiedPerson yes ill do that

@strutheo what if a country annexes another country?

@JoshuaWilkes depends how the unised nations reacts . Theres can still be a government in exile that is recognized

@strutheo my meaning is, if a country annexes another one, do they both resolve to 50?

it depends if the original country still exists in the eyes of the UN, even if they dont physically control the land

@strutheo and if they don't?

then that first country stops existing in the eyes of the un? so it would resolve?

@JoshuaWilkes if they dont what, if they dont exist?

@strutheo question is: if a country is annexed by another, and it no longer exists in the eyes of the UN, would that country resolve to 100 or 50?

@JoshuaWilkes it would resolve 100/YES, unless two are being annexed at the same time i guess?

@JoshuaWilkes do you have an example

@strutheo it seems like under the conditions you've set, if country A is forcibly annexed by country B, but with a legal veneer of process, and B changes its name to acknowledge the new territory, there's likely to be a conflict between people who think that country B should also resolve to YES and people who don't

@JoshuaWilkes ah yes, i was assuming B would keep its name as the annex-er

will have a think

@strutheo Let's say North Korea and South Korea reunite. Korea will then be recognized by the UN, but both North and South Korea will cease to exist the same way East and West Germany did. How does this resolve the North and South Korea options? I think the recognized by UN criterium murkies the water more than it helps.

@GazDownright then i would resolve both to 50-50 if it is truly a 50-50 reunification and not Nkorea joining Skorea or another arrangement

@strutheo Okay, fwiw that seems reasonable to me.

@GazDownright or like if the north korea gov dissolves, and the south gov becomes the primary one, and they both agree to become 'korea' , i think id still only resolve North Korea in that case, because functionally the south is still existing, its just a name change for them .

@strutheo I think that's equating government with country. That seems like giving preference based on one being a more effective government type. I'm not sure I buy that one.

More related questions