Sovereignty and the right of self determination

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the citizen and country nonsense is logically valid and just.

Who has the right to be sovereign?
That is: who has the right to be their own country?

According to international law as it currently stands:
"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention

So this raises the question: If these are the only valid requirements for being a country, and therefore the only requirements for being entitled to be left alone by other sovereign powers (see the UN charter), why, if the system of nation states is legally valid, can I not secede in my own person and property?

I possess a permanent population: myself.
I have a defined territory: my body, my house.
I have a government: myself, my mind.
And apparently I am a citizen (so called) of Australia currently, so I clearly have the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

I fit the criteria for a state, so why, if this system is legally valid, am I not allowed to declare my sovereignty?


Lets consider another example.

The state of Nauru contains 9000 people. It has 90% unemployment. There is no industry except government, and the government has nothing to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru

Nauru is a member of the United Nations.

The state of Taiwan has 23 million people (as many people as Australia), it has massive industry and a thriving middle class.

Taiwan is not a recognized state and is not a member of the United Nations.


So to those of you who believe that nation states are legitimate legal entities, please explain to me the criteria by which one applies to become a nation state and how you believe this is anything other than a pack of fictitious bullshit made up to justify theft and slavery.

 

[KerokeroCola]

To your first question about yourself being sovereign: I'm sure you can agree that the presence of laws is more of a simplified and idealized view of the way things are (or should be) run. The judicial system of most developed countries with sophisticated codes of laws all possess a judicial system which is in charge of interpreting the laws. The judicial systems, thus, have extreme power in the actuality of laws. In effect, a law can be written one way but "interpreted" another way.

This is basically happening in this situation. The "power countries" in the UN are essentially the judges. Although they are not necessarily appointed, qualified, or fit many of the categories of a judicial judge, the influence of these nations is definitely strong enough for them to influence the interpretation of national codes. Thus, Nauru is a country because it doesn't really cause much of a stir in the "powerful countries;" however, Taiwan's sovereignty is disputed by China (obviously one of the most powerful countries in the world), so they interpret the code in their favor.

An argument against this is Israel, whose existence is denied by dozens of powerful nations. However, Israel was created (it was literally drawn up out of a map) by the most powerful countries in the world. In this case, the bigger gun gets to interpret the law their way.


By the way, I think this is my first attempt at ever answering a Sythe question. Your questions always make me think too hard, and an argument against you is always very difficult. In other words, bravo.

 

To your first question about yourself being sovereign: I'm sure you can agree that the presence of laws is more of a simplified and idealized view of the way things are (or should be) run. The judicial system of most developed countries with sophisticated codes of laws all possess a judicial system which is in charge of interpreting the laws. The judicial systems, thus, have extreme power in the actuality of laws. In effect, a law can be written one way but "interpreted" another way.

What does this have to do with me being able to secede?

This is basically happening in this situation. The "power countries" in the UN are essentially the judges. Although they are not necessarily appointed, qualified, or fit many of the categories of a judicial judge, the influence of these nations is definitely strong enough for them to influence the interpretation of national codes. Thus, Nauru is a country because it doesn't really cause much of a stir in the "powerful countries;" however, Taiwan's sovereignty is disputed by China (obviously one of the most powerful countries in the world), so they interpret the code in their favor.

An argument against this is Israel, whose existence is denied by dozens of powerful nations. However, Israel was created (it was literally drawn up out of a map) by the most powerful countries in the world. In this case, the bigger gun gets to interpret the law their way.

I think you are trying to argue (poorly) in favour of the constitutive theory of statehood, but all told you are answering a question I did not ask.

My three questions were:
If we assume the validity of the theory of citizens and countries and self-determination:
1. What are the legal criteria for valid secession if not the 1933 convention?
2. Assuming 1933 convention rules, why am I not allowed to secede?
3. Assuming 1933 convention rules, why is Nauru a country and Taiwan not?

I am asking the questions in the framework of the legal structure proposed by nation state proponents. I am not asking why or how international politics have determined the current situation.

 

[Schnell]

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the citizen and country nonsense is logically valid and just.

I have a defined territory: my body, my house.

Saying it's your house isn't practically correct. "Your" house is owned by Australia, and you have permission to live in it on the condition that you pay rent (tax) to the Australian government. To declare sovereignty you would have to find a plot of land not currently claimed by a sovereign power, or make a good case that a plot of land is not rightfully claimed.

 

Saying it's your house isn't practically correct. "Your" house is owned by Australia, and you have permission to live in it on the condition that you pay rent (tax) to the Australian government. To declare sovereignty you would have to find a plot of land not currently claimed by a sovereign power, or make a good case that a plot of land is not rightfully claimed.

My house is only claimed by the government. It is not owned by the government. I own the house: I have a deed which expresses such, and I have been living here long enough that even if the deed were invalid I would still own it at common law by adverse possession. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession )

Since it can be shown that I own it, their claim is unequivocally invalid. It is my justly acquired territory.

But I don't even need my house. What about my body? Would you claim the government owns that as its territory? I have population, territory, government, and legal capacity all from within my own skull. So when do I get to be sovereign?

 

[KerokeroCola]

What does this have to do with me being able to secede?

I think you are trying to argue (poorly) in favour of the constitutive theory of statehood, but all told you are answering a question I did not ask.

My three questions were:
If we assume the validity of the theory of citizens and countries and self-determination:
1. What are the legal criteria for valid secession if not the 1933 convention?
2. Assuming 1933 convention rules, why am I not allowed to secede?
3. Assuming 1933 convention rules, why is Nauru a country and Taiwan not?

I am asking the questions in the framework of the legal structure proposed by nation state proponents. I am not asking why or how international politics have determined the current situation.

My answer, then, more simply put is this: We don't have that right, even though it's technically written down in paper. You answered the question yourself in referencing Taiwan. That's how the world is. The most simply put, you don't have the ability to secede (even though you technically have the right, as written down in 1933) because that right is only selectively granted, just like all rights.

I'd like to know where the flaws are in the argument, since they are probably results of late-night typoing and not having too much of an attention span.

 

[Weasel2013]

1. What are the legal criteria for valid secession if not the 1933 convention?
2. Assuming 1933 convention rules, why am I not allowed to secede?
3. Assuming 1933 convention rules, why is Nauru a country and Taiwan not?

I am asking the questions in the framework of the legal structure proposed by nation state proponents.

1. Since i'm not some sort of God or paramount Deity, i'm forced to agree with the rules as set by the 1933 convention. Now with that basis, i'd first like to mention i've reviewed the Wiki link on in full, and I believe you meet most criteria, however assuming you do, I get the impression the Wiki page is referring to you acquiring the property from the land owner or landlord, etc. ; not necessarily the real owner. What I mean is, the government owns the land. Someone before you owns that land, inevitably. Through this process you only acquire the land from them, not from the government. So while it may be "yours", it's still the government's, this process doesn't award you the land in that sense.



2. The pandemonium that would be created. Several billion independent nations? Minor alliances and quarrels? Nothing would ever get done.




3. I'm not sure on this one; but Kero's argument seems sensible. The more powerful countries get to interpret the criteria in the way they see fit. They think Naaru should be a country, and they also believe Taiwan should not be. Those classifications are not irrevocable, so if someone is appointed a government position with that much influence in the UN (would probably need to be several rapid appointments for such a shift...) then perhaps one day Taiwan will be a country and Naaru not. It would be quite an amelioration in my opinion.



Always nice debating with you Sythe, get back to me.

 

[aznguy94]

1. Since i'm not some sort of God or paramount Deity, i'm forced to agree with the rules as set by the 1933 convention. Now with that basis, i'd first like to mention i've reviewed the Wiki link on in full, and I believe you meet most criteria, however assuming you do, I get the impression the Wiki page is referring to you acquiring the property from the land owner or landlord, etc. ; not necessarily the real owner. What I mean is, the government owns the land. Someone before you owns that land, inevitably. Through this process you only acquire the land from them, not from the government. So while it may be "yours", it's still the government's, this process doesn't award you the land in that sense.



2. The pandemonium that would be created. Several billion independent nations? Minor alliances and quarrels? Nothing would ever get done.




3. I'm not sure on this one; but Kero's argument seems sensible. The more powerful countries get to interpret the criteria in the way they see fit. They think Naaru should be a country, and they also believe Taiwan should not be. Those classifications are not irrevocable, so if someone is appointed a government position with that much influence in the UN (would probably need to be several rapid appointments for such a shift...) then perhaps one day Taiwan will be a country and Naaru not. It would be quite an amelioration in my opinion.



Always nice debating with you Sythe, get back to me.

Your points aren't explicitly stated in the 1933 convention rules. You did not answer his questions, which asked about the convention. Rather, you inserted subjective opinion and interpretation to validate your points.

Anyways, I think this topic is stupid because Sythe is just asking a rhetorical question to prove a point.

 

[Schnell]

Sythe is just asking a rhetorical question to prove a point.

Are you new here?

 

[TobyL65]

I don't know much about state laws, however to answer your first question I need to know; what kind of process is it to become a sovereign?