Generate text that refutes this claim: Could retain sovereignty without acquiring new territory  While it is normal for states to have exclusive sovereign control over territory this has not always happened in the past. There have been governments in exile that have remained recognised as a result of wars or revolutions. Most notable perhaps was during world war II where there were governments in exile as a result of invasions by Germany and Japan. For example Philippine President Quezon set up The Commonwealth government in exile in Washington D.C. which remained the recognised government by the allies and therefore much of the world. [1]  A state therefore does not have to have control over a populated territory to maintain a sovereign government and for the world to recognise it as such. [2] Having a population on the territory over which the state has sovereignty matters little; migrants don’t always change citizenship when they move to live in another country. Indeed 56.9% of Samoans live outside their own territory. [3]  [1] Jose, Ricardo, T., ‘Governments in Exile’, University of the Philippines,  , p.182  [2] Yu, 2013,   [3] McAdam, 2010,  , p.8
imate water international africa global house believes seychelles should
While this is technically the case, and indeed the Seychelles would even maintain some territory, it would not be a viable long term option. While other countries would maintain recognition of a territory-less state for a while would they do so over the long term? The Seychelles government would meanwhile have immense problems exercising any kind of authority. How would a state with no, or very little, territory collect any taxes? Without a functioning government with revenues providing any of the services of a state to its citizens would be impossible. Meanwhile its citizens would likely be scattered and there would be a clash between any services offered by the state they are staying in and a government in exile trying to exercise control.