Are there any general rules as to what conditions a region should meet to become an independent state?
Is there a size minimum for a sustainable state? In population: Half a million? Five million? In land area?
A majority should want to separate from the original nation. Should it be 51%? 67%? More?
Should the remainder of the original nation have any say?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- When people want an independent state
When people want an independent stateFollow
Quote:
Are there any general rules as to what conditions a region should meet to become an independent state?
Don't try and set it up anywhere near Israel. Or China. Or Russia. Etc.
Edited, Aug 27th 2008 12:15am by paulsol
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
yossarian wrote:
Are there any general rules as to what conditions a region should meet to become an independent state?
Is there a size minimum for a sustainable state? In population: Half a million? Five million? In land area?
A majority should want to separate from the original nation. Should it be 51%? 67%? More?
Should the remainder of the original nation have any say?
Is there a size minimum for a sustainable state? In population: Half a million? Five million? In land area?
A majority should want to separate from the original nation. Should it be 51%? 67%? More?
Should the remainder of the original nation have any say?
No, you and your buddies cannot secede from the United States.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
No, you and your buddies cannot secede from the United States.
Sure they can. Repelling invasion may be slightly more challenging.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Well... iirc the UN has a list of criteria which just be met, or at least that's what I was told in high school government. I don't recall precisely what they are or were because I never had reason since then to care, but a little thinking can get you a few of them I'm sure.I'm assuming that you're talking about south ossetia, by the way. Again, iirc, they don't meet many of those conditions.
Obviously a state needs to have some way to control it's borders, and those borders must be clearly delineated and protected. If a region can't do that, then it probably shouldn't become a state. You should also probably have a sustainable infrastructure that can take care of your people.
If even 100% of a region would like to secede from it's mother country, it's just tough luck for them unless they can do some pretty basic ****. Else you just end up with a failed state with no government, starving citizens, and no recognition.
Obviously a state needs to have some way to control it's borders, and those borders must be clearly delineated and protected. If a region can't do that, then it probably shouldn't become a state. You should also probably have a sustainable infrastructure that can take care of your people.
If even 100% of a region would like to secede from it's mother country, it's just tough luck for them unless they can do some pretty basic ****. Else you just end up with a failed state with no government, starving citizens, and no recognition.
Pensive wrote:
Else you just end up with a failed state with no government, starving citizens, and no recognition.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
makes me think of lolQuebec. Of course they wanted to keep our dollar, and the current trade system, while not getting any of our debt. hmmm.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Pensive wrote:
Well... iirc the UN has a list of criteria which just be met, or at least that's what I was told in high school government. I don't recall precisely what they are or were because I never had reason since then to care, but a little thinking can get you a few of them I'm sure.I'm assuming that you're talking about south ossetia, by the way. Again, iirc, they don't meet many of those conditions.
Of course the UN's criteria is only the criteria to be part of the UN. In the end, the UN is nothing more than a clubhouse for country leaders that has no more power than any country gives it. Some countries take the word of the UN to be law, while others completely do not acknowledge the UN. In both cases, that is their decision. Whether a country exists or not is not determined by the UN. It's much more complicated than just one body have jurisdiction and criteria written on paper.
It seems that today, most countries are happy with the way the world is, and the countries we have. For the most part, any attempt to secede from your country, or invade another country are looked down upon and blocked by the "international community".
If a portion of a country really wants to secede, however, there are some hurdles. First, the need a military, and probably a serious one. Because, when you secede, your home country looks at that the same as an invasion of their territory. I mean, you are trying to take their land, and possibly some of their resources, and that is why attempts to secede are treated with military action. So, your seceding state must be able to defend itself.
As far as the infrastructure requirements, there are basically none. There really are no international police who can arrest you for not having any way to feed your people, having no roads, having no electricity, etc.
Mistress dacypher wrote:
Of course the UN's criteria is only the criteria to be part of the UN.
No, the criteria laid down by the UN is the criteria for state recognition according to international law. It doesn't mean that every state will necessarily recognise the new state, but it does generally lead to this: UN recognition almost always guarantees international recognition. The interntional law on this subject is that you need three conditions for state recognition: sovereignty over a defined territory, a permanent population, and a government. If those conditions are met, technically, it is enough for statehood recognition.
In practice, it's a bit more difficult, because cessation involves a conflict of two extremely important principles in International law: the principle of self-determination, and the sovereignty of the state. It's usually up to the GA to decide whether a territory should be recognised as a state, after a recomendation from the SC. Obviously, this means that a member of the SC can block an application for recognition in controversial cases.
Then you have the question of individual state recognition. This is supposed to be governed by the three citerias above, and in practice it sometimes is. But a lot of the time, states will decide on recognition based on political convenience. Some states are very quick to recognise break-away states, others not so much. It depends on a range of factors, such as the political tradition of the country, its history, alliances, and strategic interests.
Quote:
In the end, the UN is nothing more than a clubhouse for country leaders that has no more power than any country gives it.
It's a hell of a lot more than that. I know it's fashionable to bash the UN, but the UN comprises of dozens of agencies that do an enormous amount of good around the world: The ILO, the WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, the WFP, the WB and the IMF, the IAEA, just to cite a few. They organise elections, offer disaster relief, regulate the international trade market, impose labour standards, etc... They might do it behind the scene, and their PR might be sh*t, but they do a hell of a lot more work than just being a "clubhouse".
Quote:
Some countries take the word of the UN to be law, while others completely do not acknowledge the UN. In both cases, that is their decision. Whether a country exists or not is not determined by the UN. It's much more complicated than just one body have jurisdiction and criteria written on paper.
Again, I can't agree. If you've signed up to the UN Charter, you've signed up to abide by international law. Just because some countries might choose to break interntional law, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For all intents and purposes, a state exists when it's admitted to the UN.
Quote:
Because, when you secede, your home country looks at that the same as an invasion of their territory. I mean, you are trying to take their land, and possibly some of their resources, and that is why attempts to secede are treated with military action. So, your seceding state must be able to defend itself.
Sometimes, but not always. Some countries break-up, some territories declare independence, and there's no problem. It's not so much a question of military might, as it is of alliances. Kosovo, for exemple, has no army to speak of. The Czech Republic and Slovakia broke up without any blood shed or controversy. In practice, if a region has met the three criterias laid down above, it will attain recognition. It might take a while, but it should get there in the end.
Edited, Aug 27th 2008 9:24am by RedPhoenixxx
go for it.
BTW, we want our tax dollars back for all the roads, schools, other publlic buildings, state police, national guard back before you do. a certified check will do.
and if we start shipping all the illegal immigrants into your new state, well, gotta put them somewhere. now lets talk about import and export taxes from your small little country/state. those planes have to fly through OUR airspace dont they? special permits to enter the united states from ALL of your borders. may need a differant one for each direction they travel. passports. lets not forget those, because you will have to travel through OUR country to get anywhere, right?
this could turn into a financial boon for the rest of the country. not to mention a few million people we dont have to offer medicade or wellfare too.
and atlast, lets talk security. we will plow through your streets and fields with our military training exorcizes, then pay you a nominal fee. like we do with peurto rico and germany. however.......if you so much as park a hummer along the border, we will consider it a military build up and INVADE.....unless of coarse there is no oil or other natural resources in your tiny little country/state. if thats the case, then said hummer just becomes part of the training exorcize for target practice.
we are good neibhors. trust us.
BTW, we want our tax dollars back for all the roads, schools, other publlic buildings, state police, national guard back before you do. a certified check will do.
and if we start shipping all the illegal immigrants into your new state, well, gotta put them somewhere. now lets talk about import and export taxes from your small little country/state. those planes have to fly through OUR airspace dont they? special permits to enter the united states from ALL of your borders. may need a differant one for each direction they travel. passports. lets not forget those, because you will have to travel through OUR country to get anywhere, right?
this could turn into a financial boon for the rest of the country. not to mention a few million people we dont have to offer medicade or wellfare too.
and atlast, lets talk security. we will plow through your streets and fields with our military training exorcizes, then pay you a nominal fee. like we do with peurto rico and germany. however.......if you so much as park a hummer along the border, we will consider it a military build up and INVADE.....unless of coarse there is no oil or other natural resources in your tiny little country/state. if thats the case, then said hummer just becomes part of the training exorcize for target practice.
we are good neibhors. trust us.
Wow, shadowrelm actually just made a legitimate funny.
Don't fail at reading comprehension. No one has expressed any desire to make a nation within the US in this thread, at least.
Mostly I'm interested in if anyone has an opinion about general guidelines for when a group of people deserve their own nation. This is in reference to no particular crisis, but a huge number of cases could be considered such as: Quebec, Ireland, Scotland, Palestine, the Kurds in Turkey, the three major regions of Iraq, the Basque in Spain, currently in the news the sub-regions of Georgia, etc.
Red has, I guess, the UN standard: "you need three conditions for state recognition: sovereignty over a defined territory, a permanent population, and a government."
I think there are a bunch of places that meet those criteria, but don't have statehood.
Mostly I'm interested in if anyone has an opinion about general guidelines for when a group of people deserve their own nation. This is in reference to no particular crisis, but a huge number of cases could be considered such as: Quebec, Ireland, Scotland, Palestine, the Kurds in Turkey, the three major regions of Iraq, the Basque in Spain, currently in the news the sub-regions of Georgia, etc.
Red has, I guess, the UN standard: "you need three conditions for state recognition: sovereignty over a defined territory, a permanent population, and a government."
I think there are a bunch of places that meet those criteria, but don't have statehood.
#14REDACTED,
Posted: Aug 28 2008 at 6:15 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) sovernty is defined by your ability to defend your borders and forcefully enforce the laws passed by your government within your own borders. anything less on either part is either a civil war or a group of insurgents.
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Mistress dacypher wrote:
Of course the UN's criteria is only the criteria to be part of the UN.
No, the criteria laid down by the UN is the criteria for state recognition according to international law. It doesn't mean that every state will necessarily recognise the new state, but it does generally lead to this: UN recognition almost always guarantees international recognition. The interntional law on this subject is that you need three conditions for state recognition: sovereignty over a defined territory, a permanent population, and a government. If those conditions are met, technically, it is enough for statehood recognition.
In practice, it's a bit more difficult, because cessation involves a conflict of two extremely important principles in International law: the principle of self-determination, and the sovereignty of the state. It's usually up to the GA to decide whether a territory should be recognised as a state, after a recomendation from the SC. Obviously, this means that a member of the SC can block an application for recognition in controversial cases.
Then you have the question of individual state recognition. This is supposed to be governed by the three citerias above, and in practice it sometimes is. But a lot of the time, states will decide on recognition based on political convenience. Some states are very quick to recognise break-away states, others not so much. It depends on a range of factors, such as the political tradition of the country, its history, alliances, and strategic interests.
Quote:
In the end, the UN is nothing more than a clubhouse for country leaders that has no more power than any country gives it.
It's a hell of a lot more than that. I know it's fashionable to bash the UN, but the UN comprises of dozens of agencies that do an enormous amount of good around the world: The ILO, the WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, the WFP, the WB and the IMF, the IAEA, just to cite a few. They organise elections, offer disaster relief, regulate the international trade market, impose labour standards, etc... They might do it behind the scene, and their PR might be sh*t, but they do a hell of a lot more work than just being a "clubhouse".
Quote:
Some countries take the word of the UN to be law, while others completely do not acknowledge the UN. In both cases, that is their decision. Whether a country exists or not is not determined by the UN. It's much more complicated than just one body have jurisdiction and criteria written on paper.
Again, I can't agree. If you've signed up to the UN Charter, you've signed up to abide by international law. Just because some countries might choose to break interntional law, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For all intents and purposes, a state exists when it's admitted to the UN.
Quote:
Because, when you secede, your home country looks at that the same as an invasion of their territory. I mean, you are trying to take their land, and possibly some of their resources, and that is why attempts to secede are treated with military action. So, your seceding state must be able to defend itself.
Sometimes, but not always. Some countries break-up, some territories declare independence, and there's no problem. It's not so much a question of military might, as it is of alliances. Kosovo, for exemple, has no army to speak of. The Czech Republic and Slovakia broke up without any blood shed or controversy. In practice, if a region has met the three criterias laid down above, it will attain recognition. It might take a while, but it should get there in the end.
Edited, Aug 27th 2008 9:24am by RedPhoenixxx
What I posted is correct. There is no such thing as "international law" because there is no world governing body to enforce it. Each country has jurisdiction over itself. Each country can only promise to go along with what the Un has said, as promised by the UN charter and treaties. There is no world governing body to arrest world leaders if they break "international law". IF there was, you know there would be people screaming to have George Bush tried before it. I was not bashing the UN, believe it or not. I was only stating the fact that the UN only has as much power as each country gives it. The reason why the UN has power is because some of the most powerful nations in the world validate it, and to turn your back on it is to turn your back on many countries that you need for survival.
So in practice, yes, the UN has power and there is an "international law". In theory, no, they are not a world governing body and there is no international police. Do not down-play what can happen at a clubhouse where the most powerful people in the world meet to make deals. The UN is not the capital of the world, and they are no country's government, however.
Mistress dacypher wrote:
What I posted is correct.
No.
Let's explore why.
Quote:
There is no such thing as "international law" because there is no world governing body to enforce it.
Oh, here it is.
There is such a thing as international law. What you're finding confusing is the fact that it's not an exact replica of domestic law. It's ok though, it's quite a common mistake to make.
Quote:
Each country has jurisdiction over itself.
That's very true. And which law is used when two (or more) countries want to deal with each other? Let's take diplomatic relations, for example. Or the Law of the Sea. Trade laws. Environmental laws. Copyright. Want me to go on?
Quote:
There is no world governing body to arrest world leaders if they break "international law".
Apart from the ICC, and the ad hoc international courts. Why do think Milosevic or Charles Taylor are in the dock? According to what law do you think they are being judged?
Quote:
IF there was, you know there would be people screaming to have George Bush tried before it.
There are, they do.
Quote:
So in practice, yes, the UN has power and there is an "international law". In theory, no, they are not a world governing body and there is no international police.
In theory, yes.
They are not the world government, they are not the "capital of the world", and they are not a clubhouse.
But that's a world away from saying "there is no international law." There is tons of international law, 95% of which is observed every minute of every day, and enforced. The few examples you might find of times when international law was broken and no one was prosecuted does not change the existence of international law. I smoke cannabis without ever being arrested, does this mean there is no law against smoking cannabis?
Aside from the laws and regulations with starting a state, there are other problems that others could be discussing, those who don't know all of these inner workings of the UN. (Such as me.)
Even if you manage to sort out all of the paperwork, your country (state? Whatever.) needs people. Where would you field a decent population? Many would decide against it, figuring it to be to much of a hassle to break off with you and potentially have to move their home. After that, upon hearing what country your "stealing" (It might not be a big deal depending on how much and from what country) from, there's bound to be actions taken to get said land back. Military action as others stated.
But what if that's a no-no? Some countries might not want to tarnish their reputation by fighting over that tiny slice of land, assuming there's nothing of national value in/on it. Then you face a potential propaganda war, the native country spreading news and stories of your land being tainted, diseased or some other problem with it.
The only way I see this happening is two ways. One is if religion is tied in, rallying population through some kind of religious calling. "The Jews need their own place!" or "Now opened, Buddhaland! Come find your inner peace here!" No doubt that would spark a war, and without proper reinforcement and a military, you or whomever would lose epically and endanger the lives of many.
The other way I see it is if your party/government works out a treaty with the existing power in that area to fence off an area for your populace. I doubt anyone would though, considering nowadays everyone needs as much land/resources as they can get their hands on. Plus there's no benefit to the country that's giving up their land for you to make your tiny civilization on.
I wish that something like this could work out, I would certainly be excited over the idea of a new, very tiny country, but it doesn't seem as though it would work in todays world.
Even if you manage to sort out all of the paperwork, your country (state? Whatever.) needs people. Where would you field a decent population? Many would decide against it, figuring it to be to much of a hassle to break off with you and potentially have to move their home. After that, upon hearing what country your "stealing" (It might not be a big deal depending on how much and from what country) from, there's bound to be actions taken to get said land back. Military action as others stated.
But what if that's a no-no? Some countries might not want to tarnish their reputation by fighting over that tiny slice of land, assuming there's nothing of national value in/on it. Then you face a potential propaganda war, the native country spreading news and stories of your land being tainted, diseased or some other problem with it.
The only way I see this happening is two ways. One is if religion is tied in, rallying population through some kind of religious calling. "The Jews need their own place!" or "Now opened, Buddhaland! Come find your inner peace here!" No doubt that would spark a war, and without proper reinforcement and a military, you or whomever would lose epically and endanger the lives of many.
The other way I see it is if your party/government works out a treaty with the existing power in that area to fence off an area for your populace. I doubt anyone would though, considering nowadays everyone needs as much land/resources as they can get their hands on. Plus there's no benefit to the country that's giving up their land for you to make your tiny civilization on.
I wish that something like this could work out, I would certainly be excited over the idea of a new, very tiny country, but it doesn't seem as though it would work in todays world.
yossarian wrote:
Red has, I guess, the UN standard: "you need three conditions for state recognition: sovereignty over a defined territory, a permanent population, and a government."
In theory, yes, those are the UN's guidelines.
But you know what the say about theory: in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't.
Quote:
I think there are a bunch of places that meet those criteria, but don't have statehood.
Taiwan, for one.
I think the main problem people are having is that there is a difference between international recognition and individual state recognition. While interntional law is clear and relatively straight-foward on the issue, recognition by individual states is more problematic, because of the political factors involved. Kosovo is the best recent example: The West recogised it in a heartbeat, while Russia and Serbia haven't. The reason they didn't, especially in the case of Russia, is political. The same reason why we wouldn't recognise South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, etc...
Otherwise, there is no limit on size, or population, or anything else. As long as there is government control over a defined territory and population, then that's all that's needed officially. But in practice, the way it happens is important. If a region breaks away peacefully (through a referendum and with the agreement of the "home nation"), most of the time it will be recognised quite quickly. If it breaks-away through war and insurection, it will take longer and be more problematic. But the barriers to recognition will be political, not legal.
Otherwise, there is no limit on size, or population, or anything else. As long as there is government control over a defined territory and population, then that's all that's needed officially. But in practice, the way it happens is important. If a region breaks away peacefully (through a referendum and with the agreement of the "home nation"), most of the time it will be recognised quite quickly. If it breaks-away through war and insurection, it will take longer and be more problematic. But the barriers to recognition will be political, not legal.
Mistress dacypher wrote:
I was only stating the fact that the UN only has as much power as each country gives it.
The US government has as much power as the citizens gives it.
Just like the UN has as much power as the nations give it.
There is enforcement, although it is spotty and mostly done by member states. The latter is quite similar to the case in the US in which states enforce federal laws.
I've always wondered about placed like Andorra and Liechtenstein... never really cared enough to research it.. I figured there are there because somone had a lot of money.. or was related to someone who had a lot of money..
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Liechtenstein...
Is that where Sir Ulrich came from?
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Recent Visitors: 261
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (261)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- When people want an independent state
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC