@ges "Ideally, any "religious state" would have strong protections against the tyranny of the majority, "

This is by default standard in most dictatorships and in particular in country like Iran.

@JK They do have both.

@KC no was to most of it, albeit for sometimes different reasons (had I have to grade you on the status of the Vatican or the Church or the Holy See, that would be a straight F)

Absolutely no to theocracy in any form. No "real" country (as in excluding Vatican) is homogeneous in terms of religion so any form of theocracy is just a bunch of people forcing their delusion on other people.

Yassem, many people have said that it would only be possible if there were very strong protections of the minorities.

Xenon, what have I said falsely about the Vatican?

The Vatican "military" does not protect it from other nations. Italy does that.

I suppose if you count a massive real estate portfolio and other securities as "an economy" you would be right. But I don't see how the Vatican import/export balance sheet even closely resembles any other modern nation that isn't basically a tax haven and nothing else.

KingCyrus, still, if we're talking about a state which has laws influenced and defined on effectively religious grounds (now is not the time to discuss to what extent our current laws are on religious grounds, though I admit it is a striking degree), then that's already almost automatically an attack on a lot of peoples personal freedom. Let's say your religion is fundamentally opposed to a certain specific type of activity, like tennis for example. It's likely that tennis will be outlawed by this theocracy. That seems wrong.

Why is legislation based on religion inferior to one based on personal conviction, which is basically what every law ever was.

Excluding self-serving laws. All though an argument could be made for why the government ought to serve itself in the first place.

@ semck: England is not a state. Or, do you mean England at some point before 1707?

England is not a state? Since when?

UK, whatever.

The Montevideo Convention (1933) specifies the criteria for nationhood:
(1) A permanent population,
(2) A defined territory,
(3) Government,
(4) An ability to conduct international relations.

Some International Law professors add a 5th, informal criterion - recognition by other countries.

Although the Vatican, and San Marino, and some of those pacific islands are small they do meet all 5 of these criteria.

Liechtenstein doesn't even conduct independent international relations anymore - I think they outsourced it to Austria, and we still acknowledge their existence as a sovereign nation.

I think that's why it says "ability", though. If they wanted to, they could.

You know, territory is sort of a fungible word. webDiplomacy meets the first four criteria. Let's secede. I'm already paid up in taxes. I'd be happy to be ambassador to Fiji.

Yeah, that's why I don't exactly buy those criteria. If webDip is actually a nation, there might be something wrong. Well, we don't have the 5th.

We'd be absolutely horrible at the whole international relations bit, though.

"Hey, Turkey, do you want to split Greece? We get Crete and the Peloponnese, you get everything else."

"Hey Iraq, I know you're busy, but Turkey should be moving his military soon, you might want to stab him"

If you're interested in this stuff, read the ICJ case about the "Duchy of Sealand."

@ KingCyrus: Confusing "England" and "UK" as if they are the same thing, is like saying "California" every time you mean to say "The USA".

I think I might start doing that.

@ Mahar-Shala-Hash-Tag: The whole Sealand case is fascinating, yes.

@Jamie

"Confusing 'England' and 'UK' as if they are the same thing, is like saying 'California' every time you mean to say 'The USA'."

I have this funny feeling that there might be a good reason for making both of those mistakes around here.

I've only just noticed you were aiming the question at me - I also thought you were asking bo about it (which made no sense). Perhaps it may be prudent for you to aim for a little more clarity in future.

Anyway, ways in which the Vatican is not a full state:

1) It is not a member of the UN.
2) Vatican City does not conduct any diplomacy, has no diplomatic service, and no embassies.
3) There are no permanent citizens, as citizenship expires when the citizen no longer works in the Vatican.
4) The Vatican has no functional police force, or any real criminal justice system more broadly.

Numbers 1) and 3) here are clearly the most important on a technical level, but I thought I'd include the others as I'd remembered them because they also show just how deficient Vatican City is.

1) Being a member of the UN just means you joined a treaty organization for its benefits. Almost since its creation their have been people trying to get the US out of the UN for various reasons and leaving won't mean the US isn't a full state.

2) The Vatican does conduct diplomacy on behalf of the Catholic religion and its members. Mostly to promote peace and protect Catholics where they are a minority in China and the Third World.

@Randomizer, in that sense, the Vatican is really just a giant NGO.

There's definitely nothing wrong with a religious state- I don't even feel like this statement requires justification.

The problem with it, though, is that there is a really high cost to switching countries. If it was super easy to move and gain new citizenship, etc., then there would be no issue, as you could just leave.

People are getting confused here between "The Vatican City State" and "The Holy See". The Vatican City State is a sovereign territory of the Holy See. The Vatican City State largely does not conduct diplomacy - but the Holy See does do so, on it's behalf.

Mendax is right to say that neither the Vatican City State *nor* the Holy See has a permanent *citizenship*, so it could be argued it fails the statehood test on that point alone. However, the Montevideo Convention does not say "citizenship", it says "population". Over 800 people live in the Vatican City, but only around 220 of those hold citizenship. Since 2011 it has been possible under the law of the Vatican City for an individual or family to be formally recognised as "Vatican residents", gaining certain rights, without them holding full citizenship. Could these people help form a "permanent population" for statehood purposes?

To Mendez
1) It is not a member of the UN.
So it is not part of an organization. "The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization established 24 October 1945 to promote international co-operation." It doesn't take anything from a country not being a part of it (and even if you are a part of it you are pretty much irrelevant if you are not part of the big 7(?))

2) Vatican City does not conduct any diplomacy, has no diplomatic service, and no embassies.
OK, it doesn't play with other countries. So what? Why would it need to? Why would a state need to have diplomatic ties with other countries?

3) There are no permanent citizens, as citizenship expires when the citizen no longer works in the Vatican.
Now this is an interesting thing. IMO it doesn't make any difference but I can see how it does to others.

4) The Vatican has no functional police force, or any real criminal justice system more broadly
What is Corps of Gendarmerie of Vatican City? Also Wikipedia states it has criminal justice system. What are your points? Sources on the claims?
To the other guy "correcting" me:
Also both the Holy See and Vatican City State grant passes: "The term "Vatican passport" can mean either a passport issued by the Holy See or one issued by Vatican City State. The state can issue normal passports for its citizens; the Holy See issues personal, diplomatic and service passports." I was right then to say that.

The idea of a country is not straightforward, therefor one cannot say it is not a country, since it has been recognized by other countries, has autonomous control of its lands, indeed has police force and law system (military is not needed by a country contrary what others may claim), is invited by the UN to be a viewer or whatever (so has been Palestine but it does not fill other requirements).

Also Montevideo Convention is an American thing, not internationally ratified stuff.

Also addendum to my 2) Holy see does have diplomatic ties with others. And it has embassies.

@Ramsu - Surprisingly, there are more sources of international law than treaties. Customary International Law is a second source. The idea is that if everyone plays by the same rule for long enough and acts as though that rule has the force of law, then it is in fact, law. Nations agree to follow customary international law and customary international law is often cited in ICJ decisions. The Montevideo Convention has been recognized as customary international law for a long time, worldwide.