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