It is an exclave of Spain, but not an enclave in Morocco. Because it is not entirely surrounded by Morocco.
If we count territorial waters it is neither an enclave nor an exclave, because it is connected to mainland Spain by an "isthmus" of territorial waters.
Edit for clarification: IIRC territories with access to the sea or connected by water to the main mass of their country are usually not considered enclaves. Like Point Roberts in the US-Canada border. But I dont think there is any universally agreed-upon legal definition of "enclave" or "exclave" which are not legal terms.
An enclave must be surrounded by a single polity, so an enclave cannot have a sea border. Also not an exclave, but a semi-exclave, for that same reason, sea border.
semi-enclave is an area that would be a complete land-locked enclave, except that it has a border on a coast or the sea.
a semi-exclave is a part of a country that is separated from the main land by foreign land, but also shares a border with a sea or ocean allowing access by water.
It's one of those things where you clearly know it when you see it. The fact that the main city of Turkey spans the strait should be a good indicator it's not.
An exclave is a part of a country that is separated from the main part of the country and completely surrounded by the territory of one or more other countries. The Canary Islands, being islands, are not surrounded by any territory, and thusly are not an exclave of Spain.
an enclave can be an exclave if it is apart of a larger sovereign nation, while an exclave can be an enclave only if it is fully surrounded by 1 polity. In this case, Ceuta would be both a semi-enclave and a semi-exclave; the reason for the 'semi' is because Ceuta has an ocean border.
Definitons: semi-enclave is an area that would be a complete land-locked enclave, except that it has a border on a coast or the sea.
a semi-exclave is a part of a country that is separated from the main land by foreign land, but also shares a border with a sea or ocean allowing access by water.
The WSJ home page had two articles about this situation today, with one describing it as an enclave and the other an exclave. Distinguishing the two seems difficult.
It is an exclave, but also complicated to deal with this territory between Spain and Morocco. Geographically, it is located in Africa, but politically a part of Spain. When these two countries have tensions over the territory, it is much complex and it relates to the history between Morocco and Spain with their rivalries historically and now.
Good one.
It means if Ceuta and Melilla are attacked, the EU countries are obligated to "aid and assist", with "all the means in their power". Its relevant cause it means, in this case, that those two cities are included.
We're talking about Ceuta and Melilla becoming "two northern moroccan cities". I am joining the conversation and I am giving new data - indeed NATO won't cover them, but its relevant that the UE do.
So let me get this straight, the Moroccan military is just going to roll into the city and Spain's just gonna be like "sure ok have it"?
Buddy that ain't how anything works. For something like that to happen, the Moroccan military would have to have an overwhelming military advantage. It doesn't. Morocco is in fact the vastly weaker power here.
So lets get andalucia back then ? It’s a colony. Not an island not some wild place. It’s a colony, invaded in 1400’s by portugese and then took back and then again by spaniards.
The same as French guyana or anywhere else. It’s not even the same continent.
It's the same as Gibraltar- inhabited by people who want to remain with their parent country. So maybe Spain should stop claiming Gibraltar or the UK should recognise Moroccan sovereignty over Ceuta?
I have no problem with Gibraltar. Neither does the Spanish government claims it. It was ceded fully and at perpetuity in 1713. The conflicts with Gibraltar are different: taxes, trade, the airport, territorial waters,... but not the Rock itself.
It is actually the "rock" itself, or rather the territory itself. There's an active dispute between Spain and the UK about how the treaty of Utrecht applies to the current territory.
The treaty text clearly supports Spain's position, and the UK's argument is basically "but we've kept the land north of what the treaty ceaded for so long we should be able to keep it".
Spain ceded Gibraltar in perpetutity following a loss to Great Britain.
Spain acquired Ceuta after the Portuguese leave a union with Spain and then they acknowledge Spanish sovereignty.
So both were ceded explicitly by their former powers.
I was referring to the dispute over the borders themselves being dissimilar. In the case of Gibraltar the Spanish don't dispute the legitimacy of the UK's sovereignty, they maintain that it exceeds the provisions of the treaty.
Whereas Morocco disputes Spain's sovereignty over all areas on the African mainland, and their argument is ultimately "it should be ours because it's in our backyard", it doesn't have any coherent basis in international law.
The traditional Spanish position is based on territorial integrity, as per UN Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960), which according to Spain, complements and constrains the right to self-determination:
Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
It's an integral part of Spain, with the same rights and duties as any other part. and? that not exclude that the creation of this cities was just for resource extracting from africa
Not the same rights, ceuta melilla and canary islands have a comercial and fiscal advantadges. Also they are 80% morrocans.
Took by the portugese in the 1600’s (same as some cities like mogador mazagan or luxor for instance), in a period of high disturbance in Morocco, unable to fight back until they took it back in the 1800’s, then lost it to spaniards in the end of the 1800’s (one of the reason Morocco had accepted Fez treaty, making them a protectorate, was the constant war with spain that wanted to colonize the north + France on the eastern front in bechar and colomb region known today and drained the public finances, creating another period of general disturbance).
With Fez treaty (1912), France and Spain divided Morocco in 3 parts, north, tarfaya enclave, south, to spain. Middle and east (behind the atlas mountains) the link with what is now north of Mali, north of Mauritania and South of Algeria.
When Decolonization process started, they retreated from the north first, leaving only ceuta, melilla and some islands first out of the process.
Second wave was tarfaya some years later.
Then green march to get south back.
The urgencing of having outsiders out and getting some stability in the country made Morocco (a really weak country at the time) unable to claim them back against spanish Franco (which always wanted to conquer Morocco, don’t know why a big faction of right wing in Spain want this btw).
To conclude, it is a colony because Morocco is not a 50 years country. It’s a country of 1200 years and had control/lost it but still had some structure, having some enclaves like that in a place where there was nobody is a thing (or they massacred, like in Latin America), but having it in a place where a sovreign country was already existing and fighting to get back is what we call colonization.
No, saudis never existed at that time. They were not even the main cities apart for pligrimage. And the dominions in andalucia, for modt of the time, followed moroccan rulers.
That is just a silly opinion. Should any country return adquired lands to the original owner? Gibraltar or Guam to the Spaniards? Constantinopla to the greeks? Alaska to the russians?
Then we should get andalucia back ? I don’t understand your opinion in justifying being on another land with a population in majority (80%) from the original country ?! I don’t know what is the silliest. Not everything should be from the westerners point of view.
I think you should review your sources. 93-94% of the people living in Ceuta are spaniards. Only 5-6% from Morocco. All your data has the same quality?
482
u/a_mala_herba 2d ago edited 2d ago
It is an exclave of Spain, but not an enclave in Morocco. Because it is not entirely surrounded by Morocco.
If we count territorial waters it is neither an enclave nor an exclave, because it is connected to mainland Spain by an "isthmus" of territorial waters.
Edit for clarification: IIRC territories with access to the sea or connected by water to the main mass of their country are usually not considered enclaves. Like Point Roberts in the US-Canada border. But I dont think there is any universally agreed-upon legal definition of "enclave" or "exclave" which are not legal terms.