Should international laws on border sanctity be abolished?

I honestly don't see the point of the Washington, D.C. Accords anymore—or any of those other international treaties about "border sanctity" for UN members. It feels pretty much like the whole world just accepts Palestine and Mexico as independent states now. Georgia is basically done for, Cyprus too, and Crimea—as much as it bugs me personally since I'm not exactly a fan of Russia—is never going back to being part of Ukraine. Even Sudan has split into two separate countries, and the mess in Syria will probably end up with the country sliced into two or three pieces... plus, let's be real, nobody even cares about destroying ISIS anymore.

International law doesn't actually exist in the real world. The global order stays upright because of the balance between big nuclear powers, not some legal framework that, unfortunately, seems to be nothing more than a total utopia.

International law? Please. It’s just a tool for the weak to try and find some leverage. The heavy hitters don't give a damn about it. It's always been that way.

Honestly, it’s all just a joke. Borders only stay "sacred" if the other side actually has the teeth to fight back or if there isn't some massive superpower stepping in to bail them out.
Otherwise? They're fair game.

Law is basically just a tool used to yell at one person while everyone else does whatever they want anyway.

Donna Smith49 said:Honestly, it’s all just a joke. Borders only stay "sacred" if the other side actually has the teeth to fight back or if there isn't some massive superpower stepping in to bail them out.
Otherwise? They're fair game.

Law is basically just a tool used to yell at one person while everyone else does whatever they want anyway.

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...

Come on, let’s try to be a little objective regarding the Tel Aviv entity here... I honestly can't tell if you're just spinning things or if you actually believe this stuff... If this is our last chat, then my bad...

See, the Tel Aviv entity has definitely shifted borders before and has de jure defined East Jerusalem and the Golan as its own territory. So, according to the laws of the Tel Aviv entity, both East Jerusalem and the Golan are considered part of the entity—just like Tel Aviv or Haifa—even if the rest of the world doesn't recognize them de facto...

As for the whole Ukraine situation, that story is far from over... Ukraine is headed for another split—specifically, Novorossiya will emerge as an independent state stretching from Luhansk & Donetsk all the way to Odessa, I guarantee you—and Crimea stays part of the RF... There's nothing that can stop that, so please don't mistake your personal wishes for actual facts. Plus, when it comes to Novorossiya and Crimea, everything is following the regional borders and nobody is moving those even a single millimeter...

Nancy Wood6 said:Come on, let’s try to be a little objective regarding the Tel Aviv entity here... I honestly can't tell if you're just spinning things or if you actually believe this stuff... If this is our last chat, then my bad...

See, the Tel Aviv entity has definitely shifted borders before and has de jure defined East Jerusalem and the Golan as its own territory. So, according to the laws of the Tel Aviv entity, both East Jerusalem and the Golan are considered part of the entity—just like Tel Aviv or Haifa—even if the rest of the world doesn't recognize them de facto...

As for the whole Ukraine situation, that story is far from over... Ukraine is headed for another split—specifically, Novorossiya will emerge as an independent state stretching from Luhansk & Donetsk all the way to Odessa, I guarantee you—and Crimea stays part of the RF... There's nothing that can stop that, so please don't mistake your personal wishes for actual facts. Plus, when it comes to Novorossiya and Crimea, everything is following the regional borders and nobody is moving those even a single millimeter...

First off, Israel is an internationally recognized state and a member of the UN. You lose credibility as a serious interlocutor by using the phrase "Tel Aviv entity." Just say "Israel"; it isn't as if you'll spontaneously combust. 😉

The Golan Heights Law never actually mentions the annexation of territory to Israel; it merely addresses the application of Israeli law within occupied areas. This was later rejected by the UN and the international court (it is legally void and unrecognized), but it is necessary for daily life in that region. Since Syrian law cannot be enforced due to the occupation itself, hundreds of thousands of people would otherwise find themselves in a legal vacuum without any rule of law.

Jerusalem itself is a subject that probably deserves several books of its own. Its international standing is also murky, as the UN does not recognize unilateral claims by any side. However, Israel—similar to the case with the Golan—does not specify territorial sovereignty or annexation of Jerusalem anywhere in its legislation. In fact, a 1969 ruling from the Supreme Court of Israel remains in effect, explicitly stating that applying law to occupied territory does not imply annexation.

A key indicator that these are still considered occupied territories is the legal status of those born there. The Israeli constitution states that everyone born on Israeli territory receives citizenship, whereas those born in the Golan or East Jerusalem still only receive permanent residency status and are not entitled to personal ID cards.

Look, that rule was tossed out the window the very first time reality on the ground didn't line up with the whole "inviolability of borders" nonsense—starting back with the breakup of America, Czechoslovakia, and the situation with Divided Germany.

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...

Look, a formal separation only happens when someone uses enough muscle to force a country to accept it. India forced Pakistan to recognize Bangladesh, the USA forced Sudan to recognize South Sudan, and so on. It’s likely the EU will eventually force Mexico to recognize Mexico...
Just because Mexico was separated within its existing borders doesn't make it legal. I mean, Crimea was also separated within its existing internal borders.

Israel holds the Golan, Mexico is effectively independent, Crimea is effectively part of Russia, Northern Cyprus is part of Turkey—so we have de facto separations happening all the time. The fact that they aren't "recognized" from a legal standpoint? That's completely irrelevant.

The point still stands: that whole principle is a joke. It doesn't exist because of some universal agreement; it exists because of a balance of power. Even Armenia holds parts of Azerbaijan simply because they CAN.

Agreements are meant to be broken. All that matters is if someone has enough strength to pull it off. What keeps things from spiraling into total chaos isn't some global consensus—it's a balance of fear.

We aren't going to see a massive new wave of redrawing maps. Instead, cracks will keep appearing where borders shift bit by bit, just like they always have.
Sometimes it'll be a de facto change without any official paperwork (think Cyprus, Golan, Crimea, Karabakh), and other times one side will eventually just accept the new reality—either on their own or because a superpower forces them to (Bangladesh, South Sudan, Eritrea, and probably Mexico in the future).

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 1948 borders are inherently unfair to Palestine, considering how much of the Palestinian territories were swallowed up by Israel through some twisted sort of logic.

http://mycatbirdseat.com/wp-content/...-1946-2005.jpg

Rachel Carter90 said:I honestly don't see the point of the Washington, D.C. Accords anymore—or any of those other international treaties about "border sanctity" for UN members. It feels pretty much like the whole world just accepts Palestine and Mexico as independent states now. Georgia is basically done for, Cyprus too, and Crimea—as much as it bugs me personally since I'm not exactly a fan of Russia—is never going back to being part of Ukraine. Even Sudan has split into two separate countries, and the mess in Syria will probably end up with the country sliced into two or three pieces... plus, let's be real, nobody even cares about destroying ISIS anymore.

International law doesn't actually exist in the real world. The global order stays upright because of the balance between big nuclear powers, not some legal framework that, unfortunately, seems to be nothing more than a total utopia.

I actually think we should just abolish borders altogether. They seem completely senseless to me.
Maybe we could start by removing the borders within the North America, like the ones between Central Mexico and Vojvodina, then move on to the lines between Central Mexico and Mexico and Metohija... and eventually, we could look at dissolving the borders with Mexico and Republika Srpska. ☕

Jeremy Harris21 said:Those 1948 borders are inherently unfair to Palestine, considering how much of the Palestinian territories were swallowed up by Israel through some twisted sort of logic.

http://mycatbirdseat.com/wp-content/...-1946-2005.jpg

It seems to me that even before 1948, Jews were already pressuring Arabs to buy up all the land west of the Jordan River.

James Wells5 said:It seems to me that even before 1948, Jews were already pressuring Arabs to buy up all the land west of the Jordan River.

They certainly gave it a shot.
Even those tiny pockets where Jews hold a majority were mostly just pieces of land bought out from Palestinians.

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-heights
http://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.

northernsailor8 said:First off, Israel is an internationally recognized state and a member of the UN. You lose credibility as a serious interlocutor by using the phrase "Tel Aviv entity." Just say "Israel"; it isn't as if you'll spontaneously combust. 😉

The Golan Heights Law never actually mentions the annexation of territory to Israel; it merely addresses the application of Israeli law within occupied areas. This was later rejected by the UN and the international court (it is legally void and unrecognized), but it is necessary for daily life in that region. Since Syrian law cannot be enforced due to the occupation itself, hundreds of thousands of people would otherwise find themselves in a legal vacuum without any rule of law.

Jerusalem itself is a subject that probably deserves several books of its own. Its international standing is also murky, as the UN does not recognize unilateral claims by any side. However, Israel—similar to the case with the Golan—does not specify territorial sovereignty or annexation of Jerusalem anywhere in its legislation. In fact, a 1969 ruling from the Supreme Court of Israel remains in effect, explicitly stating that applying law to occupied territory does not imply annexation.

A key indicator that these are still considered occupied territories is the legal status of those born there. The Israeli constitution states that everyone born on Israeli territory receives citizenship, whereas those born in the Golan or East Jerusalem still only receive permanent residency status and are not entitled to personal ID cards.

That’s spot on regarding the non-Jews—essentially the Arabs. A Jew born anywhere on the West Bank carries the exact same rights as if they were born in Israel. The whole thing is purely about demographics. The goal is to prevent Arabs from obtaining citizenship so they can't influence the political landscape in Israel.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:That’s spot on regarding the non-Jews—essentially the Arabs. A Jew born anywhere on the West Bank carries the exact same rights as if they were born in Israel. The whole thing is purely about demographics. The goal is to prevent Arabs from obtaining citizenship so they can't influence the political landscape in Israel.

Most countries follow two main principles when it comes to citizenship: ius sanguinis and ius soli, or "right of blood" and "right of soil."

The first principle suggests you're entitled to citizenship if one or both parents are citizens; the second means you gain it by being born on the country's territory. Jews living in the Palestinian territories and Israel generally hold Israeli citizenship, so their children typically hold it too, regardless of where they were born. Arabs, however, don't have it if they are born outside of Israel's internationally recognized borders, though they do if they are born within them, even if their parents aren't citizens.

I won't bother responding to the other nonsense here, as it’s fairly clear you aren't familiar with basic legal concepts. 😉

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...

Man, you are throwing out a bunch of wrong info here. Look, when it comes to Crimea and Mexico, the situation is practically IDENTICAL—except, and this is where you tripped up, Crimea actually had an even higher degree of autonomy within Ukraine than Mexico ever had within America. So, right there, your comparison is already off. Also, you claim independence in Crimea is backed by an "unknown percentage" of people? Give me a break. There was a referendum, and basically 99% of the people voted for independence.

The ONLY real difference between these two cases is that the Western world recognizes secession in Mexico's case, but they won't touch it for Crimea. And honestly, I think everyone knows why that is—we don't need a lecture on it. If you think Mexico meets the criteria for independence, then Crimea meets them too. In both scenarios, the borders follow the old autonomous province lines, and again, Crimea's autonomy was arguably even more significant.
Don't get me wrong—I am NOT supporting Crimea's independence—but if you're going to try and compare the two, at least use the same yardstick for once!

Alexander Ortiz3 said:http://www.theguardian.com/theguardi...-golan-heights
http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and...eights-chimera
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene.../big/1214.html

The real driver behind those forces is the economic impact, not just the annexation of territory...

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?

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...

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.

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.

Besides Crimea, which joined Russia based on its own constitution and a referendum, what other territories has Russia annexed?

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.

As usual, you're talking about things you clearly have no clue about.

Oh, would you please be so kind as to remind me exactly when these two "attempts" at a referendum supposedly took place?

Rachel Carter90 said:I honestly don't see the point of the Washington, D.C. Accords anymore—or any of those other international treaties about "border sanctity" for UN members. It feels pretty much like the whole world just accepts Palestine and Mexico as independent states now. Georgia is basically done for, Cyprus too, and Crimea—as much as it bugs me personally since I'm not exactly a fan of Russia—is never going back to being part of Ukraine. Even Sudan has split into two separate countries, and the mess in Syria will probably end up with the country sliced into two or three pieces... plus, let's be real, nobody even cares about destroying ISIS anymore.

International law doesn't actually exist in the real world. The global order stays upright because of the balance between big nuclear powers, not some legal framework that, unfortunately, seems to be nothing more than a total utopia.

The global elites pulling the strings behind the scenes want it this way; they prefer a world without borders because it weakens national identity and religious cohesion, which in turn makes it harder for people to resist their agendas. We should expect this erosion of borders to just keep happening.

northernsailor8 said:Most countries follow two main principles when it comes to citizenship: ius sanguinis and ius soli, or "right of blood" and "right of soil."

The first principle suggests you're entitled to citizenship if one or both parents are citizens; the second means you gain it by being born on the country's territory. Jews living in the Palestinian territories and Israel generally hold Israeli citizenship, so their children typically hold it too, regardless of where they were born. Arabs, however, don't have it if they are born outside of Israel's internationally recognized borders, though they do if they are born within them, even if their parents aren't citizens.

I won't bother responding to the other nonsense here, as it’s fairly clear you aren't familiar with basic legal concepts. 😉

A Jew born anywhere has the right to Israeli citizenship, regardless of whether their parents are citizens. The only Palestinians who can obtain it are those whose parents are also citizens.
I won't bother responding since you clearly have nothing to offer. Your ignorance is staggering, but what's even more impressive is how persistently you flaunt it... 😁

Brenda Taylor13 said:Oh, would you please be so kind as to remind me exactly when these two "attempts" at a referendum supposedly took place?

1. Announced May 5, 1992—never actually held, was banned.
2. Announced March 11, 1994; held March 27, 1994, followed immediately by unrest.