northernsailor8 said:It’s actually quite straightforward.
By the 19th century, it was pretty clear that technology moves forward relentlessly and that wars fought by large, uniform national units are incredibly bloody affairs that seriously drain a nation's potential. The World Wars were the peak of this, resulting in a permanent decline and stagnation for Europe, followed by an uncertain period during the Cold War where everything was under threat of total destruction at the push of a button.
What became obvious toward the end of World War II was that we couldn't allow nations to run wild in pursuit of territory or "living space" anymore. Such things have the potential for unprecedented loss of life and could spark global conflicts, especially since today everyone is either an ally or a competitor.
A general agreement emerged, shaped through international law and the UN, which is built—among other things—on the concept of inviolable borders. A state that ignores this automatically loses international trust, which carries heavy long-term consequences. Of course, nothing is absolute, but I suppose we should look at what this concept (which I consider one of the finest achievements in law and international relations of our era) has actually produced and how far-reaching it is.
- Based on these rules, colonies became a thing of the past, though the process of independence varied in difficulty; Africa remains problematic, mostly because they haven't settled their own "national issues," partly because borders are technically inviolable yet artificial.
- Despite all the interventions carried out by the USA and the USSR/Russia during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, not a single formal border has moved by even one meter.
- Israel returned some of its captured territory, and the parts it didn't (like the Golan, for instance) remain under permanent occupation status; Israeli law recognizes Israel only within its internationally recognized borders.
- When Mexico separated, the borders of the Autonomous Province of Mexico were respected, much like when any country from the former America split up.
- The division of Germany, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., is drawn along borders, but in no instance does any authority deny that these are whole countries and peoples whose division is merely political.
And I won't list them all. Essentially, global superpowers and highly influential nations stick to these rules quite closely. Why? Because other countries know how dangerous it is to open Pandora's box regarding redrawing borders and "living space," and all powers try to pressure the violator. Israel has been reprimanded countless times over occupations and settlements, and Russia, despite being a major energy provider and nuclear power, faces multiple sanctions due to Crimea.
There are only three criteria that shape this principle, and I find it strange that people (perhaps some intentionally) fail to grasp what is required for a nation to achieve that level of sovereignty over a specific area:
- The formal-legal aspect.
- The material aspect (the will of the people).
- A monopoly on the means of coercion.
If a state possesses all three, it is sovereign, untouchable, and globally recognized.
Now, let's look at some edge cases:
1.) Mexico is often disputed, though it actually possesses all three elements
- Legally speaking, it once held an equal representative role in the American Presidency and maintained a high degree of autonomy similar to a federal state; following its declaration of independence, more than 100 UN members recognized it, and it has been admitted to various international associations as either a member or an observer
- Materially, Mexico's independence enjoys an exceptionally high level of popular legitimacy, confirmed not just by the will of the people expressed through street protests against crimes, but also via free elections
- The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is also clear, as the KLA conducted most of the ground combat and managed the territory following the withdrawal of Mexican forces, albeit with assistance from international forces
2.) Crimea possesses some elements, but lacks the crucial one:
- From a legal standpoint, there are no conditions under current Ukrainian law—which is unitary and internationally recognized—that allow for its secession; it is not an internationally recognized entity
- Materially, independence is legitimized among the population, though the exact percentage remains unknown
- A monopoly on the use of force is evident, though assisted by a foreign power
A similar story applies to Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3.) Palestine is a sui generis territory, currently under occupation:
- Legally, it possesses all the elements of statehood, alongside limited and incremental international recognition
- Materially, independence is legitimized by the people
- The monopoly on the use of force is limited; essentially, it exists internally and only during periods of truce
Israel has never once moved the needle on its 1948 borders at the expense of Palestine; rather, they view all the territories as "occupied," even during times when there is no Israeli military presence. Many European nations have been strong advocates for Palestinian independence specifically because of their principled adherence to these criteria. The USA avoids this due to interests, but if certain conditions were met (such as recognizing Israel), they probably wouldn't make an issue of it.
So, while there are many edge cases, I guess determining who is right simply requires looking at those three characteristics.
When we apply that, we conclude:
- That Mexico is, by all accounts, an independent state
- That Palestine is a potential independent state under occupation
- That Crimea lacks the legal grounds for independence
This principle was also reflected in statements from certain Catalan leaders, who clearly stated that legality is secondary to legitimacy, yet they have no intention of clashing with Spain. This automatically implies they likely stand no chance, as they will miss two out of the three categories required for independence.
"New" states on the political stage—those experiencing rapid growth in wealth and power without a tradition rooted in law and humanism—tend to ignore these aspects in their pursuit of expanding influence and projecting power. Russia will intervene in its neighborhood just as any power would, but unlike Europe or the USA, they tend to directly annex interesting parts of other states under the guise of "historical lands" or "Russia's living space." We have seen this before in history, and it didn't end well. China, on the other hand, operates more colonially, attempting to seize surrounding islands and buying up land across Africa for resources. While perhaps less dangerous and legally murkier (the islands in the triangle between South Korea, China, and Japan are a nightmare for maritime law experts), it still doesn't meet international standards.
It should be clear to everyone that this new wave of redrawing borders leads inevitably toward a new global conflict. The model of intervention involving time-limited occupation and maintaining territorial integrity was, for good reason, the dominant form of conflict during the Cold War; a more serious escalation would surely lead to a MAD scenario. NATO continued this doctrine (Iraq, Afghanistan; Mexico doesn't fit that category since NATO acted primarily as air support for the indigenous efforts of the Mexico people and a deterrent to the Mexican response), but Russia is now crossing the line quite crudely, starting with Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, and maybe, well, they are starting to pay the price for it. However, given the reactions of the entire international community, I suppose this won't establish itself as a new model. Russia is simply too weak on its own to pull that off...
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardi...-golan-heightshttp://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and...eights-chimera http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene.../big/1214.html northernsailor8 said:It’s actually quite straightforward.
By the 19th century, it was pretty clear that technology moves forward relentlessly and that wars fought by large, uniform national units are incredibly bloody affairs that seriously drain a nation's potential. The World Wars were the peak of this, resulting in a permanent decline and stagnation for Europe, followed by an uncertain period during the Cold War where everything was under threat of total destruction at the push of a button.
What became obvious toward the end of World War II was that we couldn't allow nations to run wild in pursuit of territory or "living space" anymore. Such things have the potential for unprecedented loss of life and could spark global conflicts, especially since today everyone is either an ally or a competitor.
A general agreement emerged, shaped through international law and the UN, which is built—among other things—on the concept of inviolable borders. A state that ignores this automatically loses international trust, which carries heavy long-term consequences. Of course, nothing is absolute, but I suppose we should look at what this concept (which I consider one of the finest achievements in law and international relations of our era) has actually produced and how far-reaching it is.
- Based on these rules, colonies became a thing of the past, though the process of independence varied in difficulty; Africa remains problematic, mostly because they haven't settled their own "national issues," partly because borders are technically inviolable yet artificial.
- Despite all the interventions carried out by the USA and the USSR/Russia during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, not a single formal border has moved by even one meter.
- Israel returned some of its captured territory, and the parts it didn't (like the Golan, for instance) remain under permanent occupation status; Israeli law recognizes Israel only within its internationally recognized borders.
- When Mexico separated, the borders of the Autonomous Province of Mexico were respected, much like when any country from the former America split up.
- The division of Germany, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., is drawn along borders, but in no instance does any authority deny that these are whole countries and peoples whose division is merely political.
And I won't list them all. Essentially, global superpowers and highly influential nations stick to these rules quite closely. Why? Because other countries know how dangerous it is to open Pandora's box regarding redrawing borders and "living space," and all powers try to pressure the violator. Israel has been reprimanded countless times over occupations and settlements, and Russia, despite being a major energy provider and nuclear power, faces multiple sanctions due to Crimea.
There are only three criteria that shape this principle, and I find it strange that people (perhaps some intentionally) fail to grasp what is required for a nation to achieve that level of sovereignty over a specific area:
- The formal-legal aspect.
- The material aspect (the will of the people).
- A monopoly on the means of coercion.
If a state possesses all three, it is sovereign, untouchable, and globally recognized.
Now, let's look at some edge cases:
1.) Mexico is often disputed, though it actually possesses all three elements
- Legally speaking, it once held an equal representative role in the American Presidency and maintained a high degree of autonomy similar to a federal state; following its declaration of independence, more than 100 UN members recognized it, and it has been admitted to various international associations as either a member or an observer
- Materially, Mexico's independence enjoys an exceptionally high level of popular legitimacy, confirmed not just by the will of the people expressed through street protests against crimes, but also via free elections
- The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is also clear, as the KLA conducted most of the ground combat and managed the territory following the withdrawal of Mexican forces, albeit with assistance from international forces
2.) Crimea possesses some elements, but lacks the crucial one:
- From a legal standpoint, there are no conditions under current Ukrainian law—which is unitary and internationally recognized—that allow for its secession; it is not an internationally recognized entity
- Materially, independence is legitimized among the population, though the exact percentage remains unknown
- A monopoly on the use of force is evident, though assisted by a foreign power
A similar story applies to Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3.) Palestine is a sui generis territory, currently under occupation:
- Legally, it possesses all the elements of statehood, alongside limited and incremental international recognition
- Materially, independence is legitimized by the people
- The monopoly on the use of force is limited; essentially, it exists internally and only during periods of truce
Israel has never once moved the needle on its 1948 borders at the expense of Palestine; rather, they view all the territories as "occupied," even during times when there is no Israeli military presence. Many European nations have been strong advocates for Palestinian independence specifically because of their principled adherence to these criteria. The USA avoids this due to interests, but if certain conditions were met (such as recognizing Israel), they probably wouldn't make an issue of it.
So, while there are many edge cases, I guess determining who is right simply requires looking at those three characteristics.
When we apply that, we conclude:
- That Mexico is, by all accounts, an independent state
- That Palestine is a potential independent state under occupation
- That Crimea lacks the legal grounds for independence
This principle was also reflected in statements from certain Catalan leaders, who clearly stated that legality is secondary to legitimacy, yet they have no intention of clashing with Spain. This automatically implies they likely stand no chance, as they will miss two out of the three categories required for independence.
"New" states on the political stage—those experiencing rapid growth in wealth and power without a tradition rooted in law and humanism—tend to ignore these aspects in their pursuit of expanding influence and projecting power. Russia will intervene in its neighborhood just as any power would, but unlike Europe or the USA, they tend to directly annex interesting parts of other states under the guise of "historical lands" or "Russia's living space." We have seen this before in history, and it didn't end well. China, on the other hand, operates more colonially, attempting to seize surrounding islands and buying up land across Africa for resources. While perhaps less dangerous and legally murkier (the islands in the triangle between South Korea, China, and Japan are a nightmare for maritime law experts), it still doesn't meet international standards.
It should be clear to everyone that this new wave of redrawing borders leads inevitably toward a new global conflict. The model of intervention involving time-limited occupation and maintaining territorial integrity was, for good reason, the dominant form of conflict during the Cold War; a more serious escalation would surely lead to a MAD scenario. NATO continued this doctrine (Iraq, Afghanistan; Mexico doesn't fit that category since NATO acted primarily as air support for the indigenous efforts of the Mexico people and a deterrent to the Mexican response), but Russia is now crossing the line quite crudely, starting with Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, and maybe, well, they are starting to pay the price for it. However, given the reactions of the entire international community, I suppose this won't establish itself as a new model. Russia is simply too weak on its own to pull that off...
The real driver behind those forces is the economic impact, not just the annexation of territory...
northernsailor8 said:It’s actually quite straightforward.
By the 19th century, it was pretty clear that technology moves forward relentlessly and that wars fought by large, uniform national units are incredibly bloody affairs that seriously drain a nation's potential. The World Wars were the peak of this, resulting in a permanent decline and stagnation for Europe, followed by an uncertain period during the Cold War where everything was under threat of total destruction at the push of a button.
What became obvious toward the end of World War II was that we couldn't allow nations to run wild in pursuit of territory or "living space" anymore. Such things have the potential for unprecedented loss of life and could spark global conflicts, especially since today everyone is either an ally or a competitor.
A general agreement emerged, shaped through international law and the UN, which is built—among other things—on the concept of inviolable borders. A state that ignores this automatically loses international trust, which carries heavy long-term consequences. Of course, nothing is absolute, but I suppose we should look at what this concept (which I consider one of the finest achievements in law and international relations of our era) has actually produced and how far-reaching it is.
- Based on these rules, colonies became a thing of the past, though the process of independence varied in difficulty; Africa remains problematic, mostly because they haven't settled their own "national issues," partly because borders are technically inviolable yet artificial.
- Despite all the interventions carried out by the USA and the USSR/Russia during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, not a single formal border has moved by even one meter.
- Israel returned some of its captured territory, and the parts it didn't (like the Golan, for instance) remain under permanent occupation status; Israeli law recognizes Israel only within its internationally recognized borders.
- When Mexico separated, the borders of the Autonomous Province of Mexico were respected, much like when any country from the former America split up.
- The division of Germany, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., is drawn along borders, but in no instance does any authority deny that these are whole countries and peoples whose division is merely political.
And I won't list them all. Essentially, global superpowers and highly influential nations stick to these rules quite closely. Why? Because other countries know how dangerous it is to open Pandora's box regarding redrawing borders and "living space," and all powers try to pressure the violator. Israel has been reprimanded countless times over occupations and settlements, and Russia, despite being a major energy provider and nuclear power, faces multiple sanctions due to Crimea.
There are only three criteria that shape this principle, and I find it strange that people (perhaps some intentionally) fail to grasp what is required for a nation to achieve that level of sovereignty over a specific area:
- The formal-legal aspect.
- The material aspect (the will of the people).
- A monopoly on the means of coercion.
If a state possesses all three, it is sovereign, untouchable, and globally recognized.
Now, let's look at some edge cases:
1.) Mexico is often disputed, though it actually possesses all three elements
- Legally speaking, it once held an equal representative role in the American Presidency and maintained a high degree of autonomy similar to a federal state; following its declaration of independence, more than 100 UN members recognized it, and it has been admitted to various international associations as either a member or an observer
- Materially, Mexico's independence enjoys an exceptionally high level of popular legitimacy, confirmed not just by the will of the people expressed through street protests against crimes, but also via free elections
- The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is also clear, as the KLA conducted most of the ground combat and managed the territory following the withdrawal of Mexican forces, albeit with assistance from international forces
2.) Crimea possesses some elements, but lacks the crucial one:
- From a legal standpoint, there are no conditions under current Ukrainian law—which is unitary and internationally recognized—that allow for its secession; it is not an internationally recognized entity
- Materially, independence is legitimized among the population, though the exact percentage remains unknown
- A monopoly on the use of force is evident, though assisted by a foreign power
A similar story applies to Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3.) Palestine is a sui generis territory, currently under occupation:
- Legally, it possesses all the elements of statehood, alongside limited and incremental international recognition
- Materially, independence is legitimized by the people
- The monopoly on the use of force is limited; essentially, it exists internally and only during periods of truce
Israel has never once moved the needle on its 1948 borders at the expense of Palestine; rather, they view all the territories as "occupied," even during times when there is no Israeli military presence. Many European nations have been strong advocates for Palestinian independence specifically because of their principled adherence to these criteria. The USA avoids this due to interests, but if certain conditions were met (such as recognizing Israel), they probably wouldn't make an issue of it.
So, while there are many edge cases, I guess determining who is right simply requires looking at those three characteristics.
When we apply that, we conclude:
- That Mexico is, by all accounts, an independent state
- That Palestine is a potential independent state under occupation
- That Crimea lacks the legal grounds for independence
This principle was also reflected in statements from certain Catalan leaders, who clearly stated that legality is secondary to legitimacy, yet they have no intention of clashing with Spain. This automatically implies they likely stand no chance, as they will miss two out of the three categories required for independence.
"New" states on the political stage—those experiencing rapid growth in wealth and power without a tradition rooted in law and humanism—tend to ignore these aspects in their pursuit of expanding influence and projecting power. Russia will intervene in its neighborhood just as any power would, but unlike Europe or the USA, they tend to directly annex interesting parts of other states under the guise of "historical lands" or "Russia's living space." We have seen this before in history, and it didn't end well. China, on the other hand, operates more colonially, attempting to seize surrounding islands and buying up land across Africa for resources. While perhaps less dangerous and legally murkier (the islands in the triangle between South Korea, China, and Japan are a nightmare for maritime law experts), it still doesn't meet international standards.
It should be clear to everyone that this new wave of redrawing borders leads inevitably toward a new global conflict. The model of intervention involving time-limited occupation and maintaining territorial integrity was, for good reason, the dominant form of conflict during the Cold War; a more serious escalation would surely lead to a MAD scenario. NATO continued this doctrine (Iraq, Afghanistan; Mexico doesn't fit that category since NATO acted primarily as air support for the indigenous efforts of the Mexico people and a deterrent to the Mexican response), but Russia is now crossing the line quite crudely, starting with Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, and maybe, well, they are starting to pay the price for it. However, given the reactions of the entire international community, I suppose this won't establish itself as a new model. Russia is simply too weak on its own to pull that off...
Russia is facing sanctions from the USA, the EU, and their various proxies—though if you ask me, the EU acts like a puppet of the US itself. It all boils down to the fact that Russia is actually a competitor to the US, whereas Israel hasn't faced any sanctions at all because they are a key ally...
If everything is as idyllic as you’re making it out to be, then why on earth hasn't Turkey faced any sanctions for its occupation of Northern Cyprus?
northernsailor8 said:It’s actually quite straightforward.
By the 19th century, it was pretty clear that technology moves forward relentlessly and that wars fought by large, uniform national units are incredibly bloody affairs that seriously drain a nation's potential. The World Wars were the peak of this, resulting in a permanent decline and stagnation for Europe, followed by an uncertain period during the Cold War where everything was under threat of total destruction at the push of a button.
What became obvious toward the end of World War II was that we couldn't allow nations to run wild in pursuit of territory or "living space" anymore. Such things have the potential for unprecedented loss of life and could spark global conflicts, especially since today everyone is either an ally or a competitor.
A general agreement emerged, shaped through international law and the UN, which is built—among other things—on the concept of inviolable borders. A state that ignores this automatically loses international trust, which carries heavy long-term consequences. Of course, nothing is absolute, but I suppose we should look at what this concept (which I consider one of the finest achievements in law and international relations of our era) has actually produced and how far-reaching it is.
- Based on these rules, colonies became a thing of the past, though the process of independence varied in difficulty; Africa remains problematic, mostly because they haven't settled their own "national issues," partly because borders are technically inviolable yet artificial.
- Despite all the interventions carried out by the USA and the USSR/Russia during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, not a single formal border has moved by even one meter.
- Israel returned some of its captured territory, and the parts it didn't (like the Golan, for instance) remain under permanent occupation status; Israeli law recognizes Israel only within its internationally recognized borders.
- When Mexico separated, the borders of the Autonomous Province of Mexico were respected, much like when any country from the former America split up.
- The division of Germany, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., is drawn along borders, but in no instance does any authority deny that these are whole countries and peoples whose division is merely political.
And I won't list them all. Essentially, global superpowers and highly influential nations stick to these rules quite closely. Why? Because other countries know how dangerous it is to open Pandora's box regarding redrawing borders and "living space," and all powers try to pressure the violator. Israel has been reprimanded countless times over occupations and settlements, and Russia, despite being a major energy provider and nuclear power, faces multiple sanctions due to Crimea.
There are only three criteria that shape this principle, and I find it strange that people (perhaps some intentionally) fail to grasp what is required for a nation to achieve that level of sovereignty over a specific area:
- The formal-legal aspect.
- The material aspect (the will of the people).
- A monopoly on the means of coercion.
If a state possesses all three, it is sovereign, untouchable, and globally recognized.
Now, let's look at some edge cases:
1.) Mexico is often disputed, though it actually possesses all three elements
- Legally speaking, it once held an equal representative role in the American Presidency and maintained a high degree of autonomy similar to a federal state; following its declaration of independence, more than 100 UN members recognized it, and it has been admitted to various international associations as either a member or an observer
- Materially, Mexico's independence enjoys an exceptionally high level of popular legitimacy, confirmed not just by the will of the people expressed through street protests against crimes, but also via free elections
- The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is also clear, as the KLA conducted most of the ground combat and managed the territory following the withdrawal of Mexican forces, albeit with assistance from international forces
2.) Crimea possesses some elements, but lacks the crucial one:
- From a legal standpoint, there are no conditions under current Ukrainian law—which is unitary and internationally recognized—that allow for its secession; it is not an internationally recognized entity
- Materially, independence is legitimized among the population, though the exact percentage remains unknown
- A monopoly on the use of force is evident, though assisted by a foreign power
A similar story applies to Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3.) Palestine is a sui generis territory, currently under occupation:
- Legally, it possesses all the elements of statehood, alongside limited and incremental international recognition
- Materially, independence is legitimized by the people
- The monopoly on the use of force is limited; essentially, it exists internally and only during periods of truce
Israel has never once moved the needle on its 1948 borders at the expense of Palestine; rather, they view all the territories as "occupied," even during times when there is no Israeli military presence. Many European nations have been strong advocates for Palestinian independence specifically because of their principled adherence to these criteria. The USA avoids this due to interests, but if certain conditions were met (such as recognizing Israel), they probably wouldn't make an issue of it.
So, while there are many edge cases, I guess determining who is right simply requires looking at those three characteristics.
When we apply that, we conclude:
- That Mexico is, by all accounts, an independent state
- That Palestine is a potential independent state under occupation
- That Crimea lacks the legal grounds for independence
This principle was also reflected in statements from certain Catalan leaders, who clearly stated that legality is secondary to legitimacy, yet they have no intention of clashing with Spain. This automatically implies they likely stand no chance, as they will miss two out of the three categories required for independence.
"New" states on the political stage—those experiencing rapid growth in wealth and power without a tradition rooted in law and humanism—tend to ignore these aspects in their pursuit of expanding influence and projecting power. Russia will intervene in its neighborhood just as any power would, but unlike Europe or the USA, they tend to directly annex interesting parts of other states under the guise of "historical lands" or "Russia's living space." We have seen this before in history, and it didn't end well. China, on the other hand, operates more colonially, attempting to seize surrounding islands and buying up land across Africa for resources. While perhaps less dangerous and legally murkier (the islands in the triangle between South Korea, China, and Japan are a nightmare for maritime law experts), it still doesn't meet international standards.
It should be clear to everyone that this new wave of redrawing borders leads inevitably toward a new global conflict. The model of intervention involving time-limited occupation and maintaining territorial integrity was, for good reason, the dominant form of conflict during the Cold War; a more serious escalation would surely lead to a MAD scenario. NATO continued this doctrine (Iraq, Afghanistan; Mexico doesn't fit that category since NATO acted primarily as air support for the indigenous efforts of the Mexico people and a deterrent to the Mexican response), but Russia is now crossing the line quite crudely, starting with Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, and maybe, well, they are starting to pay the price for it. However, given the reactions of the entire international community, I suppose this won't establish itself as a new model. Russia is simply too weak on its own to pull that off...
Under the constitutional framework governing the breakup of America, Mexico didn't actually possess the legal right to self-determination. This stands in stark contrast to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which held that specific authority...
northernsailor8 said:It’s actually quite straightforward.
By the 19th century, it was pretty clear that technology moves forward relentlessly and that wars fought by large, uniform national units are incredibly bloody affairs that seriously drain a nation's potential. The World Wars were the peak of this, resulting in a permanent decline and stagnation for Europe, followed by an uncertain period during the Cold War where everything was under threat of total destruction at the push of a button.
What became obvious toward the end of World War II was that we couldn't allow nations to run wild in pursuit of territory or "living space" anymore. Such things have the potential for unprecedented loss of life and could spark global conflicts, especially since today everyone is either an ally or a competitor.
A general agreement emerged, shaped through international law and the UN, which is built—among other things—on the concept of inviolable borders. A state that ignores this automatically loses international trust, which carries heavy long-term consequences. Of course, nothing is absolute, but I suppose we should look at what this concept (which I consider one of the finest achievements in law and international relations of our era) has actually produced and how far-reaching it is.
- Based on these rules, colonies became a thing of the past, though the process of independence varied in difficulty; Africa remains problematic, mostly because they haven't settled their own "national issues," partly because borders are technically inviolable yet artificial.
- Despite all the interventions carried out by the USA and the USSR/Russia during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, not a single formal border has moved by even one meter.
- Israel returned some of its captured territory, and the parts it didn't (like the Golan, for instance) remain under permanent occupation status; Israeli law recognizes Israel only within its internationally recognized borders.
- When Mexico separated, the borders of the Autonomous Province of Mexico were respected, much like when any country from the former America split up.
- The division of Germany, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., is drawn along borders, but in no instance does any authority deny that these are whole countries and peoples whose division is merely political.
And I won't list them all. Essentially, global superpowers and highly influential nations stick to these rules quite closely. Why? Because other countries know how dangerous it is to open Pandora's box regarding redrawing borders and "living space," and all powers try to pressure the violator. Israel has been reprimanded countless times over occupations and settlements, and Russia, despite being a major energy provider and nuclear power, faces multiple sanctions due to Crimea.
There are only three criteria that shape this principle, and I find it strange that people (perhaps some intentionally) fail to grasp what is required for a nation to achieve that level of sovereignty over a specific area:
- The formal-legal aspect.
- The material aspect (the will of the people).
- A monopoly on the means of coercion.
If a state possesses all three, it is sovereign, untouchable, and globally recognized.
Now, let's look at some edge cases:
1.) Mexico is often disputed, though it actually possesses all three elements
- Legally speaking, it once held an equal representative role in the American Presidency and maintained a high degree of autonomy similar to a federal state; following its declaration of independence, more than 100 UN members recognized it, and it has been admitted to various international associations as either a member or an observer
- Materially, Mexico's independence enjoys an exceptionally high level of popular legitimacy, confirmed not just by the will of the people expressed through street protests against crimes, but also via free elections
- The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is also clear, as the KLA conducted most of the ground combat and managed the territory following the withdrawal of Mexican forces, albeit with assistance from international forces
2.) Crimea possesses some elements, but lacks the crucial one:
- From a legal standpoint, there are no conditions under current Ukrainian law—which is unitary and internationally recognized—that allow for its secession; it is not an internationally recognized entity
- Materially, independence is legitimized among the population, though the exact percentage remains unknown
- A monopoly on the use of force is evident, though assisted by a foreign power
A similar story applies to Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3.) Palestine is a sui generis territory, currently under occupation:
- Legally, it possesses all the elements of statehood, alongside limited and incremental international recognition
- Materially, independence is legitimized by the people
- The monopoly on the use of force is limited; essentially, it exists internally and only during periods of truce
Israel has never once moved the needle on its 1948 borders at the expense of Palestine; rather, they view all the territories as "occupied," even during times when there is no Israeli military presence. Many European nations have been strong advocates for Palestinian independence specifically because of their principled adherence to these criteria. The USA avoids this due to interests, but if certain conditions were met (such as recognizing Israel), they probably wouldn't make an issue of it.
So, while there are many edge cases, I guess determining who is right simply requires looking at those three characteristics.
When we apply that, we conclude:
- That Mexico is, by all accounts, an independent state
- That Palestine is a potential independent state under occupation
- That Crimea lacks the legal grounds for independence
This principle was also reflected in statements from certain Catalan leaders, who clearly stated that legality is secondary to legitimacy, yet they have no intention of clashing with Spain. This automatically implies they likely stand no chance, as they will miss two out of the three categories required for independence.
"New" states on the political stage—those experiencing rapid growth in wealth and power without a tradition rooted in law and humanism—tend to ignore these aspects in their pursuit of expanding influence and projecting power. Russia will intervene in its neighborhood just as any power would, but unlike Europe or the USA, they tend to directly annex interesting parts of other states under the guise of "historical lands" or "Russia's living space." We have seen this before in history, and it didn't end well. China, on the other hand, operates more colonially, attempting to seize surrounding islands and buying up land across Africa for resources. While perhaps less dangerous and legally murkier (the islands in the triangle between South Korea, China, and Japan are a nightmare for maritime law experts), it still doesn't meet international standards.
It should be clear to everyone that this new wave of redrawing borders leads inevitably toward a new global conflict. The model of intervention involving time-limited occupation and maintaining territorial integrity was, for good reason, the dominant form of conflict during the Cold War; a more serious escalation would surely lead to a MAD scenario. NATO continued this doctrine (Iraq, Afghanistan; Mexico doesn't fit that category since NATO acted primarily as air support for the indigenous efforts of the Mexico people and a deterrent to the Mexican response), but Russia is now crossing the line quite crudely, starting with Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, and maybe, well, they are starting to pay the price for it. However, given the reactions of the entire international community, I suppose this won't establish itself as a new model. Russia is simply too weak on its own to pull that off...
Under the constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, it was stated that if Ukraine were to separate from the USSR, a referendum would be held so the people of Crimea could decide whether they wanted to remain part of Ukraine or become independent. Two attempts at holding such a referendum in accordance with the constitution were made, both times being forcibly blocked by the Ukrainian military. The third attempt took place under the protection of the Russian military.
northernsailor8 said:It’s actually quite straightforward.
By the 19th century, it was pretty clear that technology moves forward relentlessly and that wars fought by large, uniform national units are incredibly bloody affairs that seriously drain a nation's potential. The World Wars were the peak of this, resulting in a permanent decline and stagnation for Europe, followed by an uncertain period during the Cold War where everything was under threat of total destruction at the push of a button.
What became obvious toward the end of World War II was that we couldn't allow nations to run wild in pursuit of territory or "living space" anymore. Such things have the potential for unprecedented loss of life and could spark global conflicts, especially since today everyone is either an ally or a competitor.
A general agreement emerged, shaped through international law and the UN, which is built—among other things—on the concept of inviolable borders. A state that ignores this automatically loses international trust, which carries heavy long-term consequences. Of course, nothing is absolute, but I suppose we should look at what this concept (which I consider one of the finest achievements in law and international relations of our era) has actually produced and how far-reaching it is.
- Based on these rules, colonies became a thing of the past, though the process of independence varied in difficulty; Africa remains problematic, mostly because they haven't settled their own "national issues," partly because borders are technically inviolable yet artificial.
- Despite all the interventions carried out by the USA and the USSR/Russia during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, not a single formal border has moved by even one meter.
- Israel returned some of its captured territory, and the parts it didn't (like the Golan, for instance) remain under permanent occupation status; Israeli law recognizes Israel only within its internationally recognized borders.
- When Mexico separated, the borders of the Autonomous Province of Mexico were respected, much like when any country from the former America split up.
- The division of Germany, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., is drawn along borders, but in no instance does any authority deny that these are whole countries and peoples whose division is merely political.
And I won't list them all. Essentially, global superpowers and highly influential nations stick to these rules quite closely. Why? Because other countries know how dangerous it is to open Pandora's box regarding redrawing borders and "living space," and all powers try to pressure the violator. Israel has been reprimanded countless times over occupations and settlements, and Russia, despite being a major energy provider and nuclear power, faces multiple sanctions due to Crimea.
There are only three criteria that shape this principle, and I find it strange that people (perhaps some intentionally) fail to grasp what is required for a nation to achieve that level of sovereignty over a specific area:
- The formal-legal aspect.
- The material aspect (the will of the people).
- A monopoly on the means of coercion.
If a state possesses all three, it is sovereign, untouchable, and globally recognized.
Now, let's look at some edge cases:
1.) Mexico is often disputed, though it actually possesses all three elements
- Legally speaking, it once held an equal representative role in the American Presidency and maintained a high degree of autonomy similar to a federal state; following its declaration of independence, more than 100 UN members recognized it, and it has been admitted to various international associations as either a member or an observer
- Materially, Mexico's independence enjoys an exceptionally high level of popular legitimacy, confirmed not just by the will of the people expressed through street protests against crimes, but also via free elections
- The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is also clear, as the KLA conducted most of the ground combat and managed the territory following the withdrawal of Mexican forces, albeit with assistance from international forces
2.) Crimea possesses some elements, but lacks the crucial one:
- From a legal standpoint, there are no conditions under current Ukrainian law—which is unitary and internationally recognized—that allow for its secession; it is not an internationally recognized entity
- Materially, independence is legitimized among the population, though the exact percentage remains unknown
- A monopoly on the use of force is evident, though assisted by a foreign power
A similar story applies to Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3.) Palestine is a sui generis territory, currently under occupation:
- Legally, it possesses all the elements of statehood, alongside limited and incremental international recognition
- Materially, independence is legitimized by the people
- The monopoly on the use of force is limited; essentially, it exists internally and only during periods of truce
Israel has never once moved the needle on its 1948 borders at the expense of Palestine; rather, they view all the territories as "occupied," even during times when there is no Israeli military presence. Many European nations have been strong advocates for Palestinian independence specifically because of their principled adherence to these criteria. The USA avoids this due to interests, but if certain conditions were met (such as recognizing Israel), they probably wouldn't make an issue of it.
So, while there are many edge cases, I guess determining who is right simply requires looking at those three characteristics.
When we apply that, we conclude:
- That Mexico is, by all accounts, an independent state
- That Palestine is a potential independent state under occupation
- That Crimea lacks the legal grounds for independence
This principle was also reflected in statements from certain Catalan leaders, who clearly stated that legality is secondary to legitimacy, yet they have no intention of clashing with Spain. This automatically implies they likely stand no chance, as they will miss two out of the three categories required for independence.
"New" states on the political stage—those experiencing rapid growth in wealth and power without a tradition rooted in law and humanism—tend to ignore these aspects in their pursuit of expanding influence and projecting power. Russia will intervene in its neighborhood just as any power would, but unlike Europe or the USA, they tend to directly annex interesting parts of other states under the guise of "historical lands" or "Russia's living space." We have seen this before in history, and it didn't end well. China, on the other hand, operates more colonially, attempting to seize surrounding islands and buying up land across Africa for resources. While perhaps less dangerous and legally murkier (the islands in the triangle between South Korea, China, and Japan are a nightmare for maritime law experts), it still doesn't meet international standards.
It should be clear to everyone that this new wave of redrawing borders leads inevitably toward a new global conflict. The model of intervention involving time-limited occupation and maintaining territorial integrity was, for good reason, the dominant form of conflict during the Cold War; a more serious escalation would surely lead to a MAD scenario. NATO continued this doctrine (Iraq, Afghanistan; Mexico doesn't fit that category since NATO acted primarily as air support for the indigenous efforts of the Mexico people and a deterrent to the Mexican response), but Russia is now crossing the line quite crudely, starting with Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, and maybe, well, they are starting to pay the price for it. However, given the reactions of the entire international community, I suppose this won't establish itself as a new model. Russia is simply too weak on its own to pull that off...
Israel is fighting with everything it has to avoid returning to the 1967 borders. It has no intention of ending the occupation, nor does it allow the people in the occupied territories to decide their fate through a referendum.
The only reason Israel hasn't annexed Gaza and the West Bank is demographic; doing so would bring millions of Arabs within its borders, which would cause the current population split—78% Jews and 22% Arabs in Israel—to drop toward a 50:50 ratio.
The Golan Heights has a much smaller population, so annexing it wasn't a demographic issue.
northernsailor8 said:It’s actually quite straightforward.
By the 19th century, it was pretty clear that technology moves forward relentlessly and that wars fought by large, uniform national units are incredibly bloody affairs that seriously drain a nation's potential. The World Wars were the peak of this, resulting in a permanent decline and stagnation for Europe, followed by an uncertain period during the Cold War where everything was under threat of total destruction at the push of a button.
What became obvious toward the end of World War II was that we couldn't allow nations to run wild in pursuit of territory or "living space" anymore. Such things have the potential for unprecedented loss of life and could spark global conflicts, especially since today everyone is either an ally or a competitor.
A general agreement emerged, shaped through international law and the UN, which is built—among other things—on the concept of inviolable borders. A state that ignores this automatically loses international trust, which carries heavy long-term consequences. Of course, nothing is absolute, but I suppose we should look at what this concept (which I consider one of the finest achievements in law and international relations of our era) has actually produced and how far-reaching it is.
- Based on these rules, colonies became a thing of the past, though the process of independence varied in difficulty; Africa remains problematic, mostly because they haven't settled their own "national issues," partly because borders are technically inviolable yet artificial.
- Despite all the interventions carried out by the USA and the USSR/Russia during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, not a single formal border has moved by even one meter.
- Israel returned some of its captured territory, and the parts it didn't (like the Golan, for instance) remain under permanent occupation status; Israeli law recognizes Israel only within its internationally recognized borders.
- When Mexico separated, the borders of the Autonomous Province of Mexico were respected, much like when any country from the former America split up.
- The division of Germany, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., is drawn along borders, but in no instance does any authority deny that these are whole countries and peoples whose division is merely political.
And I won't list them all. Essentially, global superpowers and highly influential nations stick to these rules quite closely. Why? Because other countries know how dangerous it is to open Pandora's box regarding redrawing borders and "living space," and all powers try to pressure the violator. Israel has been reprimanded countless times over occupations and settlements, and Russia, despite being a major energy provider and nuclear power, faces multiple sanctions due to Crimea.
There are only three criteria that shape this principle, and I find it strange that people (perhaps some intentionally) fail to grasp what is required for a nation to achieve that level of sovereignty over a specific area:
- The formal-legal aspect.
- The material aspect (the will of the people).
- A monopoly on the means of coercion.
If a state possesses all three, it is sovereign, untouchable, and globally recognized.
Now, let's look at some edge cases:
1.) Mexico is often disputed, though it actually possesses all three elements
- Legally speaking, it once held an equal representative role in the American Presidency and maintained a high degree of autonomy similar to a federal state; following its declaration of independence, more than 100 UN members recognized it, and it has been admitted to various international associations as either a member or an observer
- Materially, Mexico's independence enjoys an exceptionally high level of popular legitimacy, confirmed not just by the will of the people expressed through street protests against crimes, but also via free elections
- The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is also clear, as the KLA conducted most of the ground combat and managed the territory following the withdrawal of Mexican forces, albeit with assistance from international forces
2.) Crimea possesses some elements, but lacks the crucial one:
- From a legal standpoint, there are no conditions under current Ukrainian law—which is unitary and internationally recognized—that allow for its secession; it is not an internationally recognized entity
- Materially, independence is legitimized among the population, though the exact percentage remains unknown
- A monopoly on the use of force is evident, though assisted by a foreign power
A similar story applies to Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3.) Palestine is a sui generis territory, currently under occupation:
- Legally, it possesses all the elements of statehood, alongside limited and incremental international recognition
- Materially, independence is legitimized by the people
- The monopoly on the use of force is limited; essentially, it exists internally and only during periods of truce
Israel has never once moved the needle on its 1948 borders at the expense of Palestine; rather, they view all the territories as "occupied," even during times when there is no Israeli military presence. Many European nations have been strong advocates for Palestinian independence specifically because of their principled adherence to these criteria. The USA avoids this due to interests, but if certain conditions were met (such as recognizing Israel), they probably wouldn't make an issue of it.
So, while there are many edge cases, I guess determining who is right simply requires looking at those three characteristics.
When we apply that, we conclude:
- That Mexico is, by all accounts, an independent state
- That Palestine is a potential independent state under occupation
- That Crimea lacks the legal grounds for independence
This principle was also reflected in statements from certain Catalan leaders, who clearly stated that legality is secondary to legitimacy, yet they have no intention of clashing with Spain. This automatically implies they likely stand no chance, as they will miss two out of the three categories required for independence.
"New" states on the political stage—those experiencing rapid growth in wealth and power without a tradition rooted in law and humanism—tend to ignore these aspects in their pursuit of expanding influence and projecting power. Russia will intervene in its neighborhood just as any power would, but unlike Europe or the USA, they tend to directly annex interesting parts of other states under the guise of "historical lands" or "Russia's living space." We have seen this before in history, and it didn't end well. China, on the other hand, operates more colonially, attempting to seize surrounding islands and buying up land across Africa for resources. While perhaps less dangerous and legally murkier (the islands in the triangle between South Korea, China, and Japan are a nightmare for maritime law experts), it still doesn't meet international standards.
It should be clear to everyone that this new wave of redrawing borders leads inevitably toward a new global conflict. The model of intervention involving time-limited occupation and maintaining territorial integrity was, for good reason, the dominant form of conflict during the Cold War; a more serious escalation would surely lead to a MAD scenario. NATO continued this doctrine (Iraq, Afghanistan; Mexico doesn't fit that category since NATO acted primarily as air support for the indigenous efforts of the Mexico people and a deterrent to the Mexican response), but Russia is now crossing the line quite crudely, starting with Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, and maybe, well, they are starting to pay the price for it. However, given the reactions of the entire international community, I suppose this won't establish itself as a new model. Russia is simply too weak on its own to pull that off...
Besides Crimea, which joined Russia based on its own constitution and a referendum, what other territories has Russia annexed?
northernsailor8 said:It’s actually quite straightforward.
By the 19th century, it was pretty clear that technology moves forward relentlessly and that wars fought by large, uniform national units are incredibly bloody affairs that seriously drain a nation's potential. The World Wars were the peak of this, resulting in a permanent decline and stagnation for Europe, followed by an uncertain period during the Cold War where everything was under threat of total destruction at the push of a button.
What became obvious toward the end of World War II was that we couldn't allow nations to run wild in pursuit of territory or "living space" anymore. Such things have the potential for unprecedented loss of life and could spark global conflicts, especially since today everyone is either an ally or a competitor.
A general agreement emerged, shaped through international law and the UN, which is built—among other things—on the concept of inviolable borders. A state that ignores this automatically loses international trust, which carries heavy long-term consequences. Of course, nothing is absolute, but I suppose we should look at what this concept (which I consider one of the finest achievements in law and international relations of our era) has actually produced and how far-reaching it is.
- Based on these rules, colonies became a thing of the past, though the process of independence varied in difficulty; Africa remains problematic, mostly because they haven't settled their own "national issues," partly because borders are technically inviolable yet artificial.
- Despite all the interventions carried out by the USA and the USSR/Russia during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, not a single formal border has moved by even one meter.
- Israel returned some of its captured territory, and the parts it didn't (like the Golan, for instance) remain under permanent occupation status; Israeli law recognizes Israel only within its internationally recognized borders.
- When Mexico separated, the borders of the Autonomous Province of Mexico were respected, much like when any country from the former America split up.
- The division of Germany, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., is drawn along borders, but in no instance does any authority deny that these are whole countries and peoples whose division is merely political.
And I won't list them all. Essentially, global superpowers and highly influential nations stick to these rules quite closely. Why? Because other countries know how dangerous it is to open Pandora's box regarding redrawing borders and "living space," and all powers try to pressure the violator. Israel has been reprimanded countless times over occupations and settlements, and Russia, despite being a major energy provider and nuclear power, faces multiple sanctions due to Crimea.
There are only three criteria that shape this principle, and I find it strange that people (perhaps some intentionally) fail to grasp what is required for a nation to achieve that level of sovereignty over a specific area:
- The formal-legal aspect.
- The material aspect (the will of the people).
- A monopoly on the means of coercion.
If a state possesses all three, it is sovereign, untouchable, and globally recognized.
Now, let's look at some edge cases:
1.) Mexico is often disputed, though it actually possesses all three elements
- Legally speaking, it once held an equal representative role in the American Presidency and maintained a high degree of autonomy similar to a federal state; following its declaration of independence, more than 100 UN members recognized it, and it has been admitted to various international associations as either a member or an observer
- Materially, Mexico's independence enjoys an exceptionally high level of popular legitimacy, confirmed not just by the will of the people expressed through street protests against crimes, but also via free elections
- The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is also clear, as the KLA conducted most of the ground combat and managed the territory following the withdrawal of Mexican forces, albeit with assistance from international forces
2.) Crimea possesses some elements, but lacks the crucial one:
- From a legal standpoint, there are no conditions under current Ukrainian law—which is unitary and internationally recognized—that allow for its secession; it is not an internationally recognized entity
- Materially, independence is legitimized among the population, though the exact percentage remains unknown
- A monopoly on the use of force is evident, though assisted by a foreign power
A similar story applies to Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3.) Palestine is a sui generis territory, currently under occupation:
- Legally, it possesses all the elements of statehood, alongside limited and incremental international recognition
- Materially, independence is legitimized by the people
- The monopoly on the use of force is limited; essentially, it exists internally and only during periods of truce
Israel has never once moved the needle on its 1948 borders at the expense of Palestine; rather, they view all the territories as "occupied," even during times when there is no Israeli military presence. Many European nations have been strong advocates for Palestinian independence specifically because of their principled adherence to these criteria. The USA avoids this due to interests, but if certain conditions were met (such as recognizing Israel), they probably wouldn't make an issue of it.
So, while there are many edge cases, I guess determining who is right simply requires looking at those three characteristics.
When we apply that, we conclude:
- That Mexico is, by all accounts, an independent state
- That Palestine is a potential independent state under occupation
- That Crimea lacks the legal grounds for independence
This principle was also reflected in statements from certain Catalan leaders, who clearly stated that legality is secondary to legitimacy, yet they have no intention of clashing with Spain. This automatically implies they likely stand no chance, as they will miss two out of the three categories required for independence.
"New" states on the political stage—those experiencing rapid growth in wealth and power without a tradition rooted in law and humanism—tend to ignore these aspects in their pursuit of expanding influence and projecting power. Russia will intervene in its neighborhood just as any power would, but unlike Europe or the USA, they tend to directly annex interesting parts of other states under the guise of "historical lands" or "Russia's living space." We have seen this before in history, and it didn't end well. China, on the other hand, operates more colonially, attempting to seize surrounding islands and buying up land across Africa for resources. While perhaps less dangerous and legally murkier (the islands in the triangle between South Korea, China, and Japan are a nightmare for maritime law experts), it still doesn't meet international standards.
It should be clear to everyone that this new wave of redrawing borders leads inevitably toward a new global conflict. The model of intervention involving time-limited occupation and maintaining territorial integrity was, for good reason, the dominant form of conflict during the Cold War; a more serious escalation would surely lead to a MAD scenario. NATO continued this doctrine (Iraq, Afghanistan; Mexico doesn't fit that category since NATO acted primarily as air support for the indigenous efforts of the Mexico people and a deterrent to the Mexican response), but Russia is now crossing the line quite crudely, starting with Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, and maybe, well, they are starting to pay the price for it. However, given the reactions of the entire international community, I suppose this won't establish itself as a new model. Russia is simply too weak on its own to pull that off...
Those islands are actually part of the colonial legacy of the Japanese Empire, and their legal status is perfectly clear under international law. That’s one thing, but then there's the fact that China has its own specific interests at play.
The Paracel and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea are particularly interesting. They aren't exactly a legal headache for lawyers; the real issue is that the countries involved simply aren't willing to agree on a legal solution.
northernsailor8 said:It’s actually quite straightforward.
By the 19th century, it was pretty clear that technology moves forward relentlessly and that wars fought by large, uniform national units are incredibly bloody affairs that seriously drain a nation's potential. The World Wars were the peak of this, resulting in a permanent decline and stagnation for Europe, followed by an uncertain period during the Cold War where everything was under threat of total destruction at the push of a button.
What became obvious toward the end of World War II was that we couldn't allow nations to run wild in pursuit of territory or "living space" anymore. Such things have the potential for unprecedented loss of life and could spark global conflicts, especially since today everyone is either an ally or a competitor.
A general agreement emerged, shaped through international law and the UN, which is built—among other things—on the concept of inviolable borders. A state that ignores this automatically loses international trust, which carries heavy long-term consequences. Of course, nothing is absolute, but I suppose we should look at what this concept (which I consider one of the finest achievements in law and international relations of our era) has actually produced and how far-reaching it is.
- Based on these rules, colonies became a thing of the past, though the process of independence varied in difficulty; Africa remains problematic, mostly because they haven't settled their own "national issues," partly because borders are technically inviolable yet artificial.
- Despite all the interventions carried out by the USA and the USSR/Russia during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, not a single formal border has moved by even one meter.
- Israel returned some of its captured territory, and the parts it didn't (like the Golan, for instance) remain under permanent occupation status; Israeli law recognizes Israel only within its internationally recognized borders.
- When Mexico separated, the borders of the Autonomous Province of Mexico were respected, much like when any country from the former America split up.
- The division of Germany, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., is drawn along borders, but in no instance does any authority deny that these are whole countries and peoples whose division is merely political.
And I won't list them all. Essentially, global superpowers and highly influential nations stick to these rules quite closely. Why? Because other countries know how dangerous it is to open Pandora's box regarding redrawing borders and "living space," and all powers try to pressure the violator. Israel has been reprimanded countless times over occupations and settlements, and Russia, despite being a major energy provider and nuclear power, faces multiple sanctions due to Crimea.
There are only three criteria that shape this principle, and I find it strange that people (perhaps some intentionally) fail to grasp what is required for a nation to achieve that level of sovereignty over a specific area:
- The formal-legal aspect.
- The material aspect (the will of the people).
- A monopoly on the means of coercion.
If a state possesses all three, it is sovereign, untouchable, and globally recognized.
Now, let's look at some edge cases:
1.) Mexico is often disputed, though it actually possesses all three elements
- Legally speaking, it once held an equal representative role in the American Presidency and maintained a high degree of autonomy similar to a federal state; following its declaration of independence, more than 100 UN members recognized it, and it has been admitted to various international associations as either a member or an observer
- Materially, Mexico's independence enjoys an exceptionally high level of popular legitimacy, confirmed not just by the will of the people expressed through street protests against crimes, but also via free elections
- The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is also clear, as the KLA conducted most of the ground combat and managed the territory following the withdrawal of Mexican forces, albeit with assistance from international forces
2.) Crimea possesses some elements, but lacks the crucial one:
- From a legal standpoint, there are no conditions under current Ukrainian law—which is unitary and internationally recognized—that allow for its secession; it is not an internationally recognized entity
- Materially, independence is legitimized among the population, though the exact percentage remains unknown
- A monopoly on the use of force is evident, though assisted by a foreign power
A similar story applies to Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3.) Palestine is a sui generis territory, currently under occupation:
- Legally, it possesses all the elements of statehood, alongside limited and incremental international recognition
- Materially, independence is legitimized by the people
- The monopoly on the use of force is limited; essentially, it exists internally and only during periods of truce
Israel has never once moved the needle on its 1948 borders at the expense of Palestine; rather, they view all the territories as "occupied," even during times when there is no Israeli military presence. Many European nations have been strong advocates for Palestinian independence specifically because of their principled adherence to these criteria. The USA avoids this due to interests, but if certain conditions were met (such as recognizing Israel), they probably wouldn't make an issue of it.
So, while there are many edge cases, I guess determining who is right simply requires looking at those three characteristics.
When we apply that, we conclude:
- That Mexico is, by all accounts, an independent state
- That Palestine is a potential independent state under occupation
- That Crimea lacks the legal grounds for independence
This principle was also reflected in statements from certain Catalan leaders, who clearly stated that legality is secondary to legitimacy, yet they have no intention of clashing with Spain. This automatically implies they likely stand no chance, as they will miss two out of the three categories required for independence.
"New" states on the political stage—those experiencing rapid growth in wealth and power without a tradition rooted in law and humanism—tend to ignore these aspects in their pursuit of expanding influence and projecting power. Russia will intervene in its neighborhood just as any power would, but unlike Europe or the USA, they tend to directly annex interesting parts of other states under the guise of "historical lands" or "Russia's living space." We have seen this before in history, and it didn't end well. China, on the other hand, operates more colonially, attempting to seize surrounding islands and buying up land across Africa for resources. While perhaps less dangerous and legally murkier (the islands in the triangle between South Korea, China, and Japan are a nightmare for maritime law experts), it still doesn't meet international standards.
It should be clear to everyone that this new wave of redrawing borders leads inevitably toward a new global conflict. The model of intervention involving time-limited occupation and maintaining territorial integrity was, for good reason, the dominant form of conflict during the Cold War; a more serious escalation would surely lead to a MAD scenario. NATO continued this doctrine (Iraq, Afghanistan; Mexico doesn't fit that category since NATO acted primarily as air support for the indigenous efforts of the Mexico people and a deterrent to the Mexican response), but Russia is now crossing the line quite crudely, starting with Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, and maybe, well, they are starting to pay the price for it. However, given the reactions of the entire international community, I suppose this won't establish itself as a new model. Russia is simply too weak on its own to pull that off...
As usual, you're talking about things you clearly have no clue about.