Introduction to Re-Evaluation Memorandums

The following Re-Evaluation Memorandums examine each of the current 340 ARRL DXCC Entities by applying the DXCC Rules that were in effect at the time each Entity was originally added to the DXCC Entity List. Each memorandum is a technical, rule-based analysis intended to determine whether the Entity met the published qualification criteria in force at the time of its acceptance.

A Re-Evaluation Memorandum documents the applicable DXCC Rules, applies those rules as written, and records whether the Entity qualified under the contemporaneous criteria. These memorandums do not recommend retroactive deletions, nor do they propose changes to the current DXCC Entity List. Their purpose is historical accuracy and normalization of the record.

During the historical evaluation process, it was determined that several Entities were accepted only through the use of practices that were not explicitly codified in the published DXCC Rules. These unofficial or administrative interpretations included, but were not limited to:

Acceptance of callsign prefix sub-allocations issued by a parent entity as if they constituted independent ITU-assigned callsign blocks.
Treatment of offices, departments, or bureaus operating under a single sovereign authority—particularly those within the United States Department of the Interior—as separate political or administrative entities for DXCC purposes.

When evaluated strictly under the published DXCC Rules in effect at the time of acceptance, the following Entities did not meet the formal qualification criteria and are therefore documented in this section as non-qualifying at the time they were added to the DXCC Entity List:

A6 – UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
A7 – QATAR
EA6 – BALEARIC ISLANDS
EA8 – CANARY ISLANDS
ES – ESTONIA
EU – BELARUS
EZ – TURKMENISTAN
FK/C – CHESTERFIELD ISLANDS
FS – SAINT MARTIN
GI – NORTHERN IRELAND
GM – SCOTLAND
GW – WALES
IS0 – SARDINIA
LY – LITHUANIA
SV9 – CRETE
TK – CORSICA
UA0 – ASIATIC RUSSIA
UA2 – KALININGRAD
V5 – NAMIBIA

Several Entities identified as non-qualifying under the DXCC Rules in effect at the time of their evaluation were nonetheless retained on the DXCC Entity List through grandfathering from earlier country lists, including the 1935 Country List and the immediate post-World War II country list of 1945. When the first formal ARRL DXCC Rules were established in 1947 by the American Radio Relay League, a number of these previously recognized “Countries” no longer satisfied the newly defined criteria, yet remained listed for continuity and award stability.

The inclusion of an Entity in this section reflects only its technical qualification status under historical rules and does not constitute a recommendation for removal or modification of the current DXCC Entity List.

The following table frames the clauses generically so they remain valid across multiple rule vintages (1935 → 1947 → early DXCC), while still being precise enough to provide a brief justification for inclusion in this category.

DXCC Re-Evaluation Failure Clause Mapping Table

DXCC Prefix	Entity Name	Primary Failure Clause(s)	Summary of Why It Failed Under Contemporaneous Rules
A6	United Arab Emirates	Political Sovereignty / International Personality	Did not exist as a sovereign or internationally recognized political entity at the time of DXCC adoption; the Trucial States were British protectorates without independent international standing.
A7	Qatar	Political Sovereignty / International Personality	British protectorate at the time of acceptance; no independent foreign relations or sovereignty under DXCC political criteria.
EA6	Balearic Islands	Geographic Separation (Island Distance); Political Integration	Fully integrated province of Spain; island separation from mainland Spain below qualifying thresholds and not relevant under early DXCC rules.
EA8	Canary Islands	Political Integration; No Applicable Geographic Rule	Although geographically distant, treated as integral territory of Spain; early DXCC rules did not provide island-distance qualification absent separate administration.
ES	Estonia	Sovereignty at Time of Acceptance	Incorporated into the Soviet Union at the time of DXCC acceptance; lacked independent international legal personality.
EU	Belarus	Sovereignty at Time of Acceptance	Constituent republic of the Soviet Union at time of acceptance; no independent sovereignty or foreign-relations authority.
EZ	Turkmenistan	Sovereignty at Time of Acceptance	Soviet Socialist Republic at time of acceptance; failed DXCC political independence requirements.
FK/C	Chesterfield Islands	Administrative Distinctness; Geographic Separation	No separate administration from New Caledonia; accepted only via later administrative interpretation rather than published geographic criteria.
FS	Saint Martin	Political Integration; No Independent Administration	Fully integrated subdivision of the French overseas department of Guadeloupe at time of acceptance; no sovereignty, international personality, or independent ITU prefix; geography irrelevant under 1955 rules.
GI	Northern Ireland	Political Integration; Non-Sovereign Subdivision	Integral part of the United Kingdom; no separate sovereignty or international representation under DXCC political rules.
GM	Scotland	Political Integration; Non-Sovereign Subdivision	Constituent country of the United Kingdom without independent international legal personality.
GW	Wales	Political Integration; Non-Sovereign Subdivision	Constituent country of the United Kingdom; no independent sovereignty or foreign-relations authority.
IS0	Sardinia	Geographic Separation (Island Distance); Political Integration	Island separation from Italy below qualifying thresholds; fully integrated Italian region.
LY	Lithuania	Sovereignty at Time of Acceptance	Incorporated into the Soviet Union at the time of the 1947 DXCC reset; lacked effective sovereignty, independent foreign relations, and a distinct ITU prefix.
SV9	Crete	Geographic Separation (Island Distance); Political Integration	Island separation from Greece below qualifying thresholds; fully integrated Greek territory since 1913; no qualifying rule in force at acceptance.
TK	Corsica	Political Integration; No Applicable Geographic Rule	Fully integrated part of France; no sovereignty, international personality, or qualifying geographic rule in force in 1947; continued inclusion reflects pre-war grandfathering.
UA0	Asiatic Russia	Internal Geographic Subdivision; No Political Distinctness	Purely internal geographic region of the Russian SFSR within the Soviet Union; no sovereignty, international recognition, or independent ITU allocation; geography alone insufficient under 1947 rules.
UA2	Kaliningrad	Internal Administrative Region; Exclave Not Recognized	Internal oblast of the Russian SFSR within the Soviet Union; exclave status not recognized as qualifying under 1947 DXCC rules absent political or telecommunication independence.
V5	Namibia	Non-Sovereign Mandated Territory	Administered by South Africa as a League of Nations mandate / de facto administered territory; no sovereignty, independent foreign relations, or separate ITU prefix under 1947 DXCC rules.

Notes for DXCC Re-Evaluation Failure Clause Mapping Table

All entities listed above failed contemporaneous DXCC criteria at the time of their original acceptance or carry-forward.
Failures fall into four recurring rule-based categories:
1. Absence of sovereignty or international legal personality
2. Lack of a distinct ITU callsign allocation
3. Internal political or administrative subdivision
4. Geographic separation invoked before qualifying rules existed
Later DXCC validity (where applicable) derives from rule evolution or geopolitical change, not retroactive compliance.