ABCDx: What Are DXCC Entities?
Some Historical Perspective
Now that you're familiar with the language and techniques of the art of chasing
DX,
it's time to delve a bit deeper into the murky waters of the actual criteria
for defining those places of interest to DXers - the ARRL list of DXCC Entities
that can be seen in the Appendices.
The concept for a "DX Award" evolved as a result of the natural
tendency among early hams in the 1920's and 1930's to try to contact distant
stations. The first such award by ARRL was the Worked All Continents (WAC)
award that received wide interest and participation. This inevitably led to
the interest in contacting different regions of the continents, as well as
questions as to what where the continental boundaries. Many began boasting
of their 'DX Score' - a count that claimed not only for contacts with a station
in another country, but also for making contacts with different callsign areas,
provinces, or principalities in that country. Others maintained that contacts
with various areas of the same country should not be valued as much as contacts
with a uniquely different country, which led to questions as to what was a
country? For DX purposes, was Tasmania a "country" or was it just
another part of Australia? The beginning of the DXCC program as we know it
today is credited to a series of discussions among the ham community that
were initiated in 1935 by Clinton B. DeSoto, W1CBD, then Assistant to the
Secretary of ARRL. He began by describing the problem:
"This piece has been started half a dozen times in
the past five years. It has been the subject of more cerebration and contemplation
and tabulation and plain downright misery than one cares to recall. It is
presented now -- in a form far from what we should like it to be -- only to
silence the insistent demand that has come down through the years. "How
about a list of countries of the world?" "How do I count countries
worked?" "Are Tasmania and Australia separate countries?" --
and a hundred variations of this latter. With the world WACing at a terrific
rate these days, faster by far than ever before, the number of countries worked
is increasingly becoming the criterion of excellence among outstanding DX
stations." (from: "How to Count Countries Worked" (Clinton
B. DeSoto, W1CBD, QST, Oct. 1935, p.40)
This was followed by a discussion of past attempts by ARRL to develop a "DX
Countries" list, only to be met with inconsistencies and more questions.
He proposed that a set of definitions be adopted that would provide consisten
guidelines for the ARRL to publish a DX Countries list so that one's "DX
score' could be beased upon a common standard. His first proposition was that
"Each discrete geographical or political entity is
considered to be a country."
Simple enough; however, he went on to add this qualifier:
"It is obviously incorrect to accept either geographical
or political divisions alone, as immediately the most glaring inconsistencies
appear. The only general solution that comes anywhere near to solving the
problem seems to be to reduce the definition of "country" to the
smallest common denominator -- a single unit in the world's geographical and
political proportions. This has the added advantage -- from the ham viewpoint
-- of creating a long list, offering the widest possible realm of achievement;
and who will fail to find that an attractive feature?"
As an illustration of inconsistencies in the simple definition, these exampless
(among others) were cited:
-
"Alaska and the United States are separate because
of the geographical division, just as Mexico and the United States are separate
because of the political boundary."
-
"Tasmania and Australia are separate because of
the geographical division."
-
"ZS, ZT, and ZU are counted as one country, because
there is no geographical and political distinction; ZE [then Rhodesia],
on the other hand, is a separate country."
-
"Scotland and England are individual countries,
as are the Irelands."
Following a series of articles, letters, discussions, notes, and comments,
the development of an agreeably definitive list of "countries" progressed.
At first accepted as part of the "score", the practice of allowing
different callsign "districts" (W1, W2, ...; or VK1, VK2, ...) to
count was dropped after it was pointed out that in some nations, " ...
not all numerals following prefixes indicate geographical divisions."
Finally, in The Radio Amateur Handbook, 16th Edition 1939, pp. 430 - 432, a
list of 248 "countries" was published for use by those who wished
to pursue the DXCC Award, as described in the preface to the list:
"ALTHOUGH not to be regarded as an "official" list of countries,
the following tabulation is now regarded as a reasonable standard and has
been prepared after extensive collaboration with various groups including
several geographical authorities and representative DX men. It is to be used
in connection with the awarding of the DX Century Club Certificate, issued
to members of the A.R.R.L. submitting proof of two-way contact by amateur
radio with 100 countries."
Of course, as noted in the discussions above, many on the list were not
"countries" but rather were "DXCC entities" to be used
in scores for the award. While many were indeed political entities that were
commonly referred to as countries, others were "geographic" entities
comprised of political regions of a single political entity that were separated
by intervening regions of another politiacl entity (e.g., Alaska and mainland
USA) or by sea (Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and mainland USA). For the latter reason,
many of the world's island areas became DXCC entities and many remain so today.
Despite the recognition that these were not all truely "countries",
the use of the term "DXCC Country" persisted, and is still heard
today. Nevertheless, in ARRL Bulletin #8 of 17 January, 1998, after a revision
of the rules and the program in preparation for the new millennia, the ARRL
officially declared that " In the future, countries will be referred
to as entities."
As a final historical note, it must be mentioned that some political entities
change in time so that the list must be updated. In some cases, an entity
may be deleted, such as the case when French Equatorial Africa was partitioned
into a number of individual political entities, or when they no longer satisfy
the entity criteria (usually due to political change). In those cases, the
old entity is deleted from the "Current Entities" list and they
become known as "Deleted
Entity". While only the current entities were eligible for DXCC
credit, it was customary for many years to allow DXers to still claim the
Deleted Entities as part of their "bragging" total count, and these
were reported on DXCC lists along with the Current Entities. However, beginning
in January, 2000, the rules were changed so that from then on, any entity
removed from the list was to be permantly dropped and no longer reported or
counted. Entities deleted before January, 2000 would remain on the "deleted"
list and participants could still claim them as part of their total (but not
"Current") entities count. Some old-timers have total counts as
high as 384 entities worked and confirmed!
While early definitions definition of "political" and "geographical"
entities set the course of what was to become the most popular amateur radio
award program ever, the DX Century Club certificate, it was not to be the
final word on the question of "What is a DXCC entity?". The issue
of geopolitical separation has been modified over time, to allow inclusion
of mainly island areas under certain circumstances. In addition, another category
of "special areas" was added in order to allow inclusion of entities
that don't fit nto the other criteria. Special areas include the United Nations
headquarters (4U1UN) in New York and the International Telecommunications
Union headquarters (4U1ITU) in Switzerland, along with the apolitical Antarctic
continent, among others. Needless to say, each modification has brought about
questions and arguments about DXCCC entity criteria and this will probably
never end. The latest revision of the rules was enacted in June, 2006, when
the definition of a Political Entity was expanded by the addition of criteria
1(c) (see below), allowing the addition of Swain's Island (KH8S) to the DXCC
list as number 337. Of course, arguments and discussions are a healthy, if
not inevitable, part of any endeavor but, after the decisions have been made,
it is best to just go out and work 'em!
So, what exactly are "DXCC Entities"?
The ARRL Website (www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc/rules.html#sii)
has the official wording and discussion of this issue and should be consulted.
Here is an edited version of the DXCC entity criteria, as of June, 2006,
defining 5 criteria for DXCC Entity consideration. The most difficult to understand
is that pertaining to island areas, and that reason, some figures are included
to attempt to better illustrate these points.
1. Political Entities - Political Entities are areas that are separated
by reason of government or political division and generally contain an indigenous
population that is not predominantly composed of military or scientific personnel
and meets one or more of the following criteria:
a) The entity is a UN Member State.
b) The entity has been assigned a callsign prefix bloc by
the
ITU. (Exceptions to this are international organizations as the UN and
ICAO, classified under Special Areas, 3.a; and Ineligible Areas, 4.b).)
c) The Entity contains a permanent population, is administered
by a local government, and is located at least 800 km from its parent. Specifically,
the Entity must be listed on either (a) the U.S. Department of State's list
of "Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty" (
www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/10543.htm)
as having a local "Administrative Center," or (b) the United Nations
list of "Non-Self-Governing Territories" (
www.un.org/depts/dpi/decolonization/trust3.htm).
Note: Entities qualifying under this section will be referred to as the "Parent"
when considering separation under the section "Geographical Separation."
Only Entities in this group will be acceptable as a Parent for separation
purposes.
2. Geographic Separation Entity - A Geographic Separation Entity may
result when a Political Entity is physically separated into two or more parts.
The part of such a Political Entity that contains the capital city is considered
the Parent. Other remaining parts may qualify for DXCC Entity status if they
satisfy a) or b) below:
a) Land Areas (separation by land): A part of a DXCC Entity is separated
from its Parent by 100 kilometers or more of land (including inland waters)
of another DXCC Entity. A line drawn along a great
circle in any direction from any part of the proposed Entity
must not touch the Parent before crossing 100 kilometers of the intervening
DXCC Entity.
b) Island Areas (separation by Water): new Entities may results in the case
of any of the following conditions:
i. A single island is separated from its Parent (and any other islands
that make up the DXCC Entity Parent island group) by 350 kilometers or
more, as measured from the island containing the capital city. Only one
Entity of this type may be attached to any Parent (Figures 1,2).
ii. Two or more islands are separated from the Parent by 350 kilometers
or more, and by 800 kilometers or more from each other and any other island
attached to the Parent in the same or a different island group, then each
is a DXCC Entity (Figure 3).
iii. An island is separated from its Parent by intervening
land or islands that are part of another DXCC Entity, such that a line
drawn along a great circle in any direction, from any part of the island,
does not touch the Parent before touching the intervening DXCC Entity.
There is no minimum separation distance for the first island Entity created
under this rule. (Figure 4).
Additional island Entities may be created under this rule, provided that
they are similarly separated from the Parent by a different DXCC Entity
and separated from any other islands associated with the Parent by at
least 800 km.
3. Special Areas - These may not be divided into additional Entities
under the DXCC Rules; none of these constitute a Parent Entity, and none creates
a precedent for the addition of similar or additional Entities:
a) The International Telecommunications Union in Geneva (4U1ITU) shall
be considered as a Special Entity. No additional UN locations will be considered
under this ruling.
b) The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 (effective 23 June 1961) establishes the
legal framework for the management of all land and ice shelves below 60
degrees South and declares that parties to the treaty will not recognize,
dispute, or establish territorial claims and that they will assert no new
claims while the treaty is in force. In view of these Treaty provisions,
no new Entities below 60 degrees South will be added to the DXCC List as
long as the Treaty remains in force.
c) The Spratly Islands, due to the nature of conflicting claims, and without
recognizing or refuting any claim, is recognized as a Special Entity. Operations
from this area will be accepted with the necessary permissions issued by
an occupying Entity. Operations without such permissions, such as with a
self-assigned (e.g., 1S) callsign, will not be recognized for DXCC credit.
d) Control of Western Sahara (S0) is currently at issue between
Morocco and the indigenous population. The UN has stationed a peacekeeping
force there. Until the sovereignty issue is settled, only operations licensed
by the RASD (República Árabe Saharaui Democrática) shall
count for DXCC purposes.
e) Entities on the 1998 DXCC List that do not qualify under the current criteria
remain as long as they retain the status under which they were originally
added. A change in that status will result in a review in accordance with
Criteria #5 (Removal Criteria).
4. Ineligible Areas - Areas having the following characteristics are
not eligible for inclusion on the DXCC List:
a) Areas to be considered as part of the host Entity for DXCC purposes:
i. Any extraterritorial legal Entity of any nature including, but not
limited to, embassies, consulates, monuments, offices of the United Nations
agencies or related organizations, other inter-governmental organizations
or diplomatic missions;
ii. Any area with limited sovereignty or ceremonial status, such as monuments,
indigenous areas, reservations, and homelands.
iii. Any area classified as a Demilitarized Zone, Neutral Zone or Buffer
Zone.
b) Any area which is unclaimed or not owned by a recognized
government.
5. Removal Criteria - An Entity may be removed from the List if:
a) it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. However,
if it continues to meet one or more currently existing rules, it will remain
on the List.
b) it was added to the List because:
i. Information was based on a factual error (e.g., inaccurate measurements;
observations from incomplete, inaccurate or outdated charts or maps);
and
ii. the error was made less than five years earlier than its proposed
removal date.
c) However, changes in the DXCC Criteria shall not affect the status of
any Current Entity so that criteria changes will not be applied retroactively.
A specially
annotated version of the current DXCC List is available in Appendix
2, and the standard version is on the ARRL website below.
Reference Websites
DXCC History
DXCC Today
Miscellaneous
)
)
)
)