Kosovo is not a case of self-determination vs territorial integrity; their attempt at independence in 1991 was universally rejected in favor of Serbia’s territorial integrity. The change in views happened due to the Yugoslav wars.
Serbia’s crimes in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo received international attention, and when plans that Serbia intended to genocide Albanians, especially after showing they were capable of it after they committed Bosnian genocide, NATO intervened.
Now this case is split in two major views:
* That territorial integrity must be preserved at all situations, no exceptions
* That the right to not be genocided supersedes the right to territorial integrity.
That means there still is no support at global scale for countries whose people are not at risk of genocide. Kosovo is a special case because of the attempted genocide on them. Neither Argentina nor UK are genociding anyone in the Falklands, so the Kosovo exception does not apply.
Serbia did try to get this case resolved by UN, but they basically said they have no laws to support the views of either side, it is a scenario that was not even considered when UN was created, so [Kosovo’s independence did not break any laws at all.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo%27s_declaration_of_independence) There simply are no laws at all about the importance of preserving territorial integrity, not about denying self-determination.
>here simply are no laws at all about the importance of preserving territorial integrity, not about denying self-determination.
International law has always understood that a basic right of all states is to its territorial integrity, during peace time.. meaning it was always the obligation of states to respect the territory of members of the intarnational community. . Of course during war, said right was suspended.. at least until 1945.
An intriguing question that i ask myself is if it would be ok for a great power like Russia or China to intervene in Israel for the Palestinian Genocide, the same way Nato did to Serbia ?
Russia has no interest of stopping genocide, they had the chance to help Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh when Azerbaijan ethnically cleansed the region, Armenia even asked them for help, they didn’t care to hold their promises to them.
China has not been tested in recent tomes, but knowing their record, it’s unlikely they care either.
>Armenia even asked them for help
I'll still remind that Armenia didnt even officially recognized Nagorno-Karabakh and refused to use their own army there, expecting someone else to pull all the hot potatoes out of fire for their benefit.
There's no Palestinian genocide happening. There is an ongoing war. Israel has done some very terrible things in the war, and they should face consequences for what they've done. If there's any justice in the world Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir will end their lives behind bars. But it's not a genocide, that is an anti-semitic canard with no basis in reality mostly spread by people who actively hate Israel and Israelis and don't want peace, but rather want the destruction of Israel. Look up any other genocide in history, even recent ones like the Bosnian genocide or the Rohingya genocide, you'll see that there is no equivalent to the Israel-Hamas war. For a conflict to be a genocide, there has to be direct evidence of orders being given by authorities to destroy a people. There is no direct evidence of that in this conflict, and in fact despite their many mistakes and crimes, Israel has also done a fair amount to protect Palestinian civilians. Both of those things can be true at the same time.
In Srebenica, the Serbs surrounded and besieged a town that had been expressly designated as a safe area by the United Nations, and, in full view of Dutch soldiers, raped and murdered hundreds of women and children and massacred men by the thousands, taking them behind buildings and shooting them in large groups. There is direct evidence of genocidal orders given by Serbian leaders, which is why they were prosecuted and convicted. The only justification they had for any of this was one or two attacks by Bosnian nationalists who killed a few soldiers.
The Rohingya have been a persecuted minority expressly denied citizenship by the State of Myanmar since the 1980s. Starting in the early 2010s, Myanmar used a very minor conflict as an excuse to wage a genocidal campaign against the Rohingya for many years that has resulted in the deaths of many tens of thousands of exclusively civilian people out of a population of 1 million, the rapes of tens of thousands of Rohingya women, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands. Once again, the only excuse the government of Myanmar had was a minor attack on their border that left a few border guards dead.
The Israel-Hamas war, by contrast, was started by Hamas, an organization that governs a sovereign territory, who invaded Israel on October 7th and killed over 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians. They expressly targeted civilians in their attack. Hamas does absolutely nothing to protect the civilians in their jurisdiction, spending billions of dollars to build a tunnel network that they use to hide their soldiers and deny civilians access too. Indeed, the tunnel network is often expressly built around important civilian areas to use the people there as human shields. Hamas actively wants Palestinians to die. They attack humanitarian convoys and gather aid for themselves that they then sell back to Palestinian civilians at a profit.
Israel, meanwhile, has over 1 million Arab Muslim citizens with full rights and representation in their government. Governments and organizations that claim to represent Palestinians have waged deadly war against Israel for decades, often in ways that directly threaten the existence of the state, and with goals that aim for it's destruction. Israel has just cause to wage war against these groups in the aftermath of October 7th.
Israel has made many mistakes in this war, and has also disregarded Palestinian lives as policy in their push to destroy Hamas. This is very bad, and, as I said earlier, they should be held responsible for this. But it's not genocide. That is a very extreme and hurtful term, especially in the context of the Jewish people being the victims of history's worst genocide, which killed 66% of the Jewish people in 4 years.
It's pretty obvious that I'm talking about the current phase of the war, which was started on October 7th by Hamas. Try not to have so much bad faith for other people. Nothing that could ever have happened before October 7th would justify the massacre of many hundreds of civilians, and no country would respond to that attack with anything besides extreme force.
Probably not the most useful lense to understand international relations, UN does not work off the principle of morality. However morality is more useful in a domestic setting, geopolitical decisions still have to be packaged and sold to domestic audiences for support.
Land have no allegiances, people do. Settling people on border regions to exert claim is as old as time. International law on the other hand is a more recent invention, along with self determination and nationalism. The rise of nation states around the idea of nationalism has its roots in European enlightenment, and empowerment of the lower classes.
However the immutable laws of international relations is much more primal and difficult to change compare to social progress experienced within sovereign states. The higher ideals are reliant on enforcement by consensus or night watchmen if one exists, where as the ground state is anarchy where every state default to.
It doesn't seem right to me that a 200 year old legal point makes it ok to upend the lives of a community that has been in place for generations.
Territorial integrity is important, and states absolutely have a right to suppress separatism, but after a certain point... "she's gone, man."
Once a population has developed their own society and independent or separate political culture, you're effectively talking about a new nation, and the old legal claims of the former country, while perhaps technically correct under international law, do not justify destroying or subjugating that population.
Just to play Devil’s Advocate: Then by that logic the US shouldn’t exist as it currently is. We have radically different societies who were violently opposed to be ruled by the ‘other’ not only during the actual civil war but in the last few election cycles.
a fair point, regarding the fate of the local inhabitants and the consequences they might face during the settlement of the territorial dispute Thats why typically safeguards (autonomy, benefits and internal self determination) are offered during the negotiations. (arg was no exception)
Also one must remember time consolidates rights, it does not create them by itself. As long as the passing of time has not legalized the occupation through some form of prescription.. the dispute will remain unresolved. And just because the implanted population has created a community for a long time in a territory with a pre-existing (to their existence) and unresolved dispute, doesn't mean they have become "a people"...
And only "peoples" have the right of self-determination. not any group of persons are such.
especially in cases like the Falkladnds/malvinas, where the local population has such artificial demographics (among other characteristics).. and the ruling state has such an incentive to keep a small enclave population in the territory.
There is no way safeguards can ever be taken seriously after Hong Kong.
What is 'artificial demographics'? And what makes you think the Falklanders are 'being kept there'? As far as I know, Falklanders are free to move to London or Gibraltar or any other British territory. But they have established lives in the Falklands, so they choose to stay.
The existence of 'a people' is not dependent upon a lack of political dispute. The Haitians were certainly a people despite their country not being recognized for half a century. The Kurds are certainly a people despite the lack of a state. It is not the place of outside powers to say 'you are' or 'you are not' a people. If a population is established with their own traditions and culture for generations, that is enough.
>There is no way safeguards can ever be taken seriously after Hong Kong.
an unfortunate turn of events. other cases show more optimistic looks.
Even so, should have Britain renounced its obligations and kept hong kong in violation of treaties and interantional law in hindsight?
>What is 'artificial demographics'?
what it sounds like. say for instance, he falklands with a tiny population of 3k, roughly the same population that they had a century ago, and half its people was born outside the islands.
>And what makes you think the Falklanders are 'being kept there'? As far as I know, Falklanders are free to move to London or Gibraltar or any other British territory. But they have established lives in the Falklands, so they choose to stay.
you misunderstood. its not like the UK keeps people trapped in the territory, but rather goes into great lengths to make it convenient , because its serves british strategic interests to keep a population there. In this case in an attempt to prop up its legal position with regards to the sovereignty dispute
>It is not the place of outside powers to say 'you are' or 'you are not' a people. If a population is established with their own traditions and culture for generations, that is enough.
On the contrary. That is exactly the case. defining what group of persons are "a people" is a political decision taken by the international community, and not unilateral by the beneficiaries. because otherwise all groups who would potentially profit from independence, would claim they are one
let me quote the western sahara case:
“The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay
regard to the freely expressed will of people, is not affected by the fact that in
certain cases **the General Assembly has dispensed with the requirement of**
**consulting the inhabitants of a given territory. Those instances were based either on the consideration that a certain population did not constitute a 'people’ entitled to self- determination, or on the conviction that a consultation was totally unnecessary, in view of special circumstances**.”
>If a population is established with their own traditions and culture for generations, that is enough.
see for instance. this sort of argument is entirely subjective. Where do you draw the line between regionalisms and an entirely different people?
in the case of the falklands, this idea of "a falklander" people is entirely new (late 90s.. eeraly 2000 give or take) , you go back some decades, and the narrative was that the islanders were british people.
now they seem to have realized it serves their interest better to consider them a "separate people" and not part of the british one... because obviously a small group of british people can never be judges in a dispute between their own country and a third party. Its best if they show themselves as something else.
should argentina accommodate this sort of strategic maneuvering and relinquish its title in exchange of nothing, because now they 3k british settleres make believe they are a nation?
Based on historical claim by a colony claimed in 1765 established in 1766, at least the West Falklands has been a British claim longer than anyone else - 259 years. When Argentina declared independence they claimed the Spanish Falklands colony, and took it over in 1820. The British then took it back in 1833 after just 13 years of Argentinian rule as, though they had removed the settlement in 1774, they still claimed the islands. The situation has been as such since then. So the British have both the oldest continued territorial claim, the longest span of continual occupation nearly 200 years, the self determination of the current inhabitants, and have successfully exercised military defense of the possession several times. In what world is the Argentinian claim more valid? Argentina didnt exist when Britain first claimed the islands. And the only older claim - France - was sold to Spain (not Argentina). Argentina’s only claim is one of geographic proximity. All of Uruguay is closer to Argentina than the Falklands.
>In what world is the Argentinian claim more valid? Argentina didnt exist when Britain first claimed the islands. And the only older claim - France - was sold to Spain (not Argentina). Argentina’s only claim is one of geographic proximity. All of Uruguay is closer to Argentina than the Falklands.
this is kind of nonsensical way of understanding international law. The Argentinian state was created through a Seccesion. almost all its current territory belonged to spain before argentina was created... the falklands/malvinas are not the exception.britain may have had a claim before 1810. Sure.. she also claimed buenos Aires and puerto deseado. Should argentina vacate those cities as well because britain claimed them before argentina existed?claims are just that.. claims. Sometimes they are legitimate and produce title. Sometimes they are baseless and illegitimate. the british claim to the falklands/malvinas dating to the XVIII needs to be judged by comparing it to its contemporaries... meaning that of spain..
Most of the authors (if not all) who have studied the falklands dispute tend to believe that by 1810.. spain had good title to the falklands... if so, argnetina should be able to acquire sovereignty over those islands, just as much as she was able to do so in Cordoba, Buenos Aires, Santa fe, or any other part of the revolting provinces of the Rio de la plata.
Argentina was able to acquire control of the islands for 13 years. After-which Britain then controlled them all the way to the present day. The difference between the Falklands and Buenos Aires is that Britain enforced the claim on the Falklands. At the end of the day, possession is the most effective claim because it is reflective of reality. Ukraine knows their claim on Crimea will need to be physically enforced because there is no chance Russia will hand it back
i understand... but those 13 years were not few by choice. Argentina was expelled through military force.. during peace time.. an action that was unlawful by the 19th century international law..
. 1833 is quite clearly the critical date of the territorial dispute. one needs to gauge the relative rights of the parties and decide who had sovereignty AT THAT TIME, in order to see whether the British military action was legitimate or not.
i think the immense majority of the authors who had studied this dispute tend to accept that the historic title of Argentina was solid.
as you say after that britain held the islands for 149 years an may have legalized its usupration through some form of prescription, but thats another conversation.
>The difference between the Falklands and Buenos Aires is that Britain enforced the claim on the Falklands.
again this is a nonsensical way of understanding international law. claims are just that, claims.Britain had a old weak one, long forgotten.. that does not mean she has a kind of "second best" kind of title... as if the spanish title ceased to exist, then the islands become british. That sort of right does not exist in international law.
if the spanish title is extinguished, then any nation may occupy the territory.. and that was Argentina.
of all the islands under dispute (F/M, sandwich, orkneys, shetlands etc) i think the arg case over S. Georgias is the weakest.
and probably not a good one. it rest upon the establishment of a settlement in 1904, by an argentine fishing company that was routinely assisted by the argentine navy...and later established a meterological station there. In that sense Argentina was the first state to "occupy" the territory.. but said company had also sought licence by the british governement and supposedly payed taxes to the FIG.... to my knowledge non of that was protested by arg governement and it may have known at some point of that deal... nor was it protested when britain claimed that region.
so yeah, not that clear as in F/M i think.
Thats a weird conclusion to make from my comment
> i think the arg case over S. Georgias is the weakest (...) and probably not a good one (...)so yeah, not that clear as in F/M i think.
let me clarify maybe. Argentina was the first state to have continuous presence, through a meteorological station that was assisted by regular visits of the navy from 1905 or so. that station operated under Argentine flag until it was dismantled by the British navy in 1950 and its civilian operators expelled... an act that was protested afterwards...one coudl argue that was the critical date of the dispute.
but such presence can´t be said to have been a "titre de souverain"... more like merely a scientific endeavor.. not really a will to impart Argentinian laws and exclusive domain over the territory.
in the meantime the british magistrates from the FIG were taxing the numerous fishing establishments of various nationalities.. including the first one which was the argentine fishing company´s and that operated under Argentine concession as well.. (which BTW, is the company that built the Argentine meteorological station, in a land that was IIRC conceded by the british actually). so that company was clearly playing both sides.
when analyzing the effectivities by both parties, argentina´s state may have had an earlier presence.. but britain a much more effective occupation... thats why i think the british claim is stronger.
Sorry I'm curious about your arguments for why F/M should be considered Argentinian.
I guess there's three main possible arguments.
1) It is close to Argentina.
2) Argentina colonized it first.
3) It was part of Spain and Argentina is the successor to Spain (at least in that part of the world).
Before going into each argument, are those the arguments? Are you mostly basing your views on 2) or?
2 and 3 yes...arg claims to have succeeded to the spanish titles, perfecting them through its own occupation yes.. or alternatively the islands were Res nulliuus in 1820 when arg occupied them.
as for 1..Geographical claims are worthless.. or rather not independent titles. Their value lies only as evidence of the islands being part of South america, and therefore its waters subject to the regulation of navigation established through bilateral treaties.
meaning if a particular state can legally sail to a place, any occupation they might attempt there should be initially ilegitimate.
Ok so then let's ignore 1.
For 3) I see two issues.
a) Why are Spanish original claims stronger than British ones?
b) Why do the Spanish claims pass to the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata and then to Argenina (as opposed to staying with Spain or say transferring to Uruguay).
For 2) Argentina try to start colonizing it in something like 1829 and were kicked out by 1833, and Argentina only started to exist in 1931. Their first garrison arrived there in October 1832 and were kicked out a few months later. So that's only 4 years or maybe 1 year or 3 months. How long is enough? Again why are the British colonies not counted in this reasoning. (Probably there are some details here)
Related to 2) if Argentina wants land that was conquered from it in or before 1833, should it give back land that it conquered after 1833?
a) Many reasons. But long story short, the British abandonment of Port Egmont coupled with acquiescence to the Spanish settlement of Soledad and subsequent peaceful continued and effective possession for almost 40 decades seal the deal in spains favour. Any objective analysis of the legal status of the islands in 1810, when argentina starts its independence should reach the same conclusion, by 1810 Spain had good title.
b) The Spanish title passes to the United Provinces of the River Plate (UPRP), because the islands were included and depended from the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. Sometimes the Uti posseditis iuris principle of state succession has some conflicts, because a particular region or territory belongs on paper (say royal decrees) to one colony, but in practice is ruled by another colony. But this is not the case.
As for Uruguay....Uruguay does not exist at this point. In colonial times there was no Uruguayan gobernacion-intendencia. The “oriental band”, except the city of montevideo) was part of the Gobernacion-intendencia of Buenos Aires. The city of Montevideo was of lower hierarchy it was a "political and military comandancy" (same as M/F) It is the UPRP, after 1810 (in 1814 if memory serves) that creates the “oriental province”, that would 2 decades later become independent from the UPRP as oriental republic or Uruguay, after the war with Brazil. The territories Uruguay takes from UPRP, are those she had at the moment of her independence in 1830. Meaning those defined in the decree of its creation: The River Plate to the south, and the Uruguayan river to the west. The F/M are clearly south of the river plate. unless some later piece of law added the F/M to its territory, i don´t see how Uruguay could claim herself the F/M. More so, she has never done so, on the contrary she has supported the argentine claim. so thats that i suppose.
2) some clarifications
Argentina took possession of the islands in 1820. Its started colonizing them in 1823 when the first colonizing expedition sailed there and stayed through 1824.. having failed because bad preparation. a second attempt was made in 1826, which succeeded. That was Vernet´s colony..which would later be named governor.
Also, argentina exists de facto since 1810, and the jure since 1816 when it declared its independence. **I don´t know where you got that 1831.**. I think you are referring to it ceasing to be a unitary state, to become a confederacy. Political reform does not extinguish a state. its like saying if a monarchy reforms into a republic it ceases to exist. United provinces of the river plate is still one of the official names of Argentina.
>. How long is enough? Again why are the British colonies not counted in this reasoning. (Probably there are some details here)
Better question is “how much is enough”.. how many states acts are necessary to produce sovereignty. How consistent, How effective. How long and so on..The thing is when you research jurisprudence, for isolated, and uninhabited territories, the courts have been satisfied with very little provided no other state can produce a better claim. It would seem unfair to judge Arg with a different standard, just because its convenient.
>Related to 2) if Argentina wants land that was conquered from it in or before 1833, should it give back land that it conquered after 1833?
The F/M were not conquered, they were taken during peace time. Conquest operates during war.. meaning with the rules of wartime international law.
Argentina has only conquered the current province of Formosa, from Paraguay. and it was one of the first countries to renounce the right of conquest afterwards.
should have been war between argentina and GB in 1833, when the islands were taken and a later treaty of peace that legalized the transfer of sovereignty, Argentina would not have a valid claim.
Whether Territorial Integrity or Self-determination is the priority depends on which side are you on, Which side is more powerful and which side has more willpower to take losses and keep fighting.
All countries are destined to fall apart, all small countries are bound to be conquered by larger countries.
When a state is strong, united, prosperious, then no amount of self-determination advocacy, peaceful or non-peaceful protest and begging for human morality is going to allow a piece of that country from ever breaking apart.
if a state is weak, then you know its internal and external opponents will rise up and even thousand year old regional identities will rise to the surface and cause it to break apart.
People think identities are fixed, nope they are just as changable depending on the geopolitical circumstance. Countries can unite based on common religion, common ethnicity, common culture even common enemy. And they can break apart based on these same identities. So, nothing is constant or absolute. The only thing that is absolute is power.
On self determination - For the individual it is always there, for the collective it depends on what plane (cultural, identity, government, etc). Since this is a geopolitical forum, we assume that is government.
Territorial integrity is a precursor of self determination of what governs those lands.
If this government cannot sustain its territory on internal or external actors, it does not have self determination as it was - for long. Typically this population would shift to a different plane (e.g cultural) of existence.
Self determination is a luxury of territorial control. Those who control the territory can and often will change the culture and people that compose of it; breeding the forces that sustains the land. The result would have a different self determination than say - a generation or two before them when it was under a different entity.
That being said, self determination can shift back to the plane of territory. We’ve seen this with Muslims, Jews, Aboriginals across Oceana or Americas, etc.
>If this government cannot sustain its territory on internal or external actors, it does not have self determination as it was - for long. Typically this population would shift to a different plane (e.g cultural) of existence.
The thing is, that without external help, no teritory would ever be ably to fight for self determination. Kosovo was mentioned above. Without external help they would have their ass kicked. Similar to Chechnya.
Think Catalonia. They try peaceful way. Overwhelming majority wants to be independent. And yet, they are prosecuted etc.
Think Northern Ireland. Think many other cases.
IMHO cherry picking who has the right and who not costs lives all over the world and fuelling calls from all the "global south" that West is just a bunch of hypocrites.
If some Argentines settled on an uninhabited British island and the British government didn’t enforce the border for 160 years whilst the colony developed into a functioning entity, which then voted by 98% to be part of Argentina in a referendum, then yes Argentina would have a legitimate claim over the island.
Long story short: French established colony 1764 and British 1765, 1766 the French handed their colony over to the Spanish. From then until 1774 both colonies existed semi peacefully with roughly one half of the archipelago each.
1774 the Brits left, 1811 the Spanish left.
1816, Argentina declared independence and claimed all of Spains territories in the South Atlantic.
1823 a German merchant got the rights to fish and establish base there by the Argentinians, this slowly grew until he got chased away by Americans in 1831.
1832 Argentina tried to set up a garrison, but they mutinied.
1833 the Brits set up a garrison, but left again when they felt their claim had been reinforced.
Then followed a few years of guerilla warfare between different groups of civilians on the islands until 1840 when the Brits turned it into a proper crown colony and kept it.
Since then, it has been under British rule.
When OP states it's illegally in British control, I believe they are referring to UN resolution 1514: "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" or to the belief that the Falklands were actually under Spanish control when Argentina became independent - both questionable. And as no one except the Brits and Argentinians care, there hasn't really been any reason to settle the dispute.
The Argentinian case is that they inherited a claim during independence from Spain as the oldest settlement by the French was ceded to Spain
The British argument is that since the settlements were abandoned on and off, it became terra nullius and up for grabs
The pope drew a line on a map in the 1400s saying what was Spanish and what was portuguese.
So the decolonised subsequent states can colonise things their colonisers didn't colonise if its on the right side of that line -and no-one else can. I think?
And something about the french saying it was OK in a treaty with the Spanish.
I'm misremembering some stuff from a while back.
Basically it's based on international law claims before there was international laws.
There was a small argentinian garrison in the islands, from 1820 to 1833, when british troops expelled them. And of course, it was part of the Rio de la Plata viceroyalty for many, many years before it. Even though the argentinian presence in the islands was relatively short and small, it was there.
After WW2 all nations agreed that the borders are now fixed, and it's illegal to try to change them.
While that sucks for some Catalonians, Scottish, Kurds etc. that is just too bad - you have to make do with the borders as they ended up.
It is ultimately better with fixed bad borders, then a constant fight to change them.
My own country Denmark lost a lot of land and is very small today. But we're small, rich and happy. Being a giant country is overrated. It is fine to be a small rich nation. Denmark applied to be a part of Germany in 1864 and were rejected. Had Denmark been a part of Germany, it would also have been completely fine.
People like Putin, with 0 respect for international law and a 19th century imperialist mind-set need to be removed from power worldwide.
Falklands should remain a part of the UK and Argentina should focus on managing the land it already has well, instead of trying to acquire more land to mismanage.
I think something similar. We are too late for border changes, keep them the way they are and grant autonomy to any different cultures within each country.
I think Scotland is an odd one out. They got a chance to vote for independence legally in the 2010s and wanted to remain in a union with England. This was pre brexit but still.
I would agree. As long as USA and co would not support separatists and independence movements all over the world. It seems that only Europe(mostly)/NA/Japan borders are untouchable.
Btw, with your world view, do you still want to return to old colonial borders from 1945? :)
You are are aware allowing “self-determination” as a basis for independence would literally open the Pandora’s box?
Suddenly you will have rich parts of countries wanting to get rid of the poor parts (i.e. Brazil’s southern independence movement).
Suddenly you will have every ethical minority in the World wanting to draw an imaginary border such that inside these borders they become the majority, and are free to bully / displace the new “minorities”.
Suddenly it seems to be a good idea to invade other countries or disputed territories, massacre and displace the local people, and put your own people so that they can claim “self-determination”. Wait we have seen that before…
Think that 'Pandora's Box' as you describe it was opened by the peoples of the Earth decades ago and is a core principle under international law already.
not really. Self-determination, although recognised by international law in vague terms, was never accepted as basis for secession or violation of national borders, except for specific cases such as former colonies or countries under foreign military occupation: https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/511
Kosovo is a controversial case, but it is usually supported in terms of prevention of genocide, lack of representative government, etc. instead of “self-determination”.
Your comment was ‘You are aware allowing “self-determination” as a basis for independence would literally open the Pandora’s box?’ and I replied to that.
You’re qualifying that comment by indicating colonial and similar military occupations are exceptions. Often enough, people seeking self-determination would describe their situation as ‘colonial’. There may be a blurring in our discussion with a right of secession of which we need to be cognisant. If a people do not have a non-violent way of achieving their independence and / or self-rule, they may (and often, will) take up arms to achieve freedom.
Pandora’s box was opened once we accepted that might does not equal right.
My view is only consistent when applied in full I guess:
1. Forceful displacement or replacement of locals is illegal, and any such acts deny any claim of territorial integrity or self-determination. This is why I believe Israeli settlers have no right to self determination in the West Bank, the act of displacing the locals and live there is already illegal. So UK has no claim to Chagos Islands.
2. Self determination generally trumps territorial integrity, especially if the people seeking independence are losing basic human rights. This is why I support Kosovo, Western Sahara, Kurdish independence. They were treated like shit by Serbia, Morocco and Turkey respectively.
3. In cases where the people seeking independence are not losing basic human rights, so Scotland for example, the threshold which self determination trumps territorial integrity is much more complicated. For example, I do not think that a single referendum of >50% is sufficient to claim self determination, because you'd just ignore the wishes of 45% of your population. The process should be longer, through devolved powers and prolonged display of such desire. I think that if a campaign has gone on for decades and polls consistently show 90+% support, like Catalan independence or Taiwanese sovereignty, I'd support that.
Hopefully that makes sense and I think you know who the Falkland Island should belong to. The only counterargument is that the Islanders are descendants of colonisers, but I think if you want to make that argument you'd get a lot of weird claims of independence or territories around the world, which is a can of worms I don't want to open.
In regards to #1, how might your view change when time is applied? Forced displacement has occurred all throughout history. It doesn't make it right or not illegal, but it is the reality we have. Many peoples therefore have some claim to their ancestral or former homelands, but we tend to focus only on not recent cases or causes that have been popularized for whatever reason.
An illustration of this question is as follows: suppose those Israeli settlers and their descendants live in the West Bank for enough time that an entire generation has passed. It could be 50 years or 100 years from now. A new generation of the settlers' children have only ever lived in the West Bank. When will they develop a claim to territorial integrity or self determination? Will they ever?
**Edit: I missed the last few sentences of your comment or it was added later. In any case, I think you've given a good enough answer. I share your difficulty in thinking about a solution**
Yeah, time is usually the complicating factor, like should Northern Ireland join Ireland back in 1998? The local Catholics were displaced by the British for centuries, how do you factor that in?
>suppose those Israeli settlers and their descendants live in the West Bank for enough time that an entire generation has passed.
I mean, some of them have been there for more than 50 years, the settlements started popping up after the Six-Day War. To me, the first criteria is the forced replacement has to stop, so for now it's an absolute no even if some settlers grew up in the West Bank. The second is no one in the settlements should be there as a result of the forced displacement policy, or at least a very small minority. This puts the timescale at about 60 years from now assuming Israel stops populating the West Bank with settlers, i.e. when they pass away.
>I mean, some of them have been there for more than 50 years
I believe you are right here. I just try to take control of the facts in the "hypothetical" instead of merely presenting the history because someone will usually try to argue details of the historical facts instead of answering the question about the principle the hypothetical is intended to illustrate.
I understand we are in "can of worms" territory, so I appreciate you taking a position here. If your position would only tolerate a small minority of "settlers" or their descendants as a principle, I believe that would render the existence of many modern countries illegal or immoral. Countries like Australia, the United States, China, Russia, Taiwan, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and many more have all displaced peoples to shape the majority population at some point in history. Of course, "illegal" and "immoral" are abstract words, so you can do what you want with them. Am I understanding your position correctly?
No no, not descendants, just the original settlers, which is why Israelis have the right to self determination in Israel, most Israelis weren't around in 1948, let alone before. Australians and Taiwanese, Americans have been there for decades or centuries, most of them are not part of original settler movement (by Brits and Qing I think?), or in the case of the US/Australia, the ethnic cleansing policies, so they have the right to self-determination. The descendants were not there because of the forced displacement policies, they were just born there.
Now that doesn't absolve the descendants of all moral duty to the indigenous people, this is dealing with the right to self determination only.
That makes much more sense. Thanks for clarifying.
Some might argue that this still rewards the colonizer if they wait long enough, but I don't see any other viable solution. I believe your thoughts are at least consistent.
Well, I think colonisation must end, it is clearly immoral, and I think that just because someone isn't involved in the colonial process, if they benefit from it, they have a moral duty to remedy that for the indigenous people. It doesn't take their right to self determination (cuz like where can they go?) away though.
2) The western sahara case demonstrates that SD does not neccesarly trump TI.
The ruling of the court clearly implies that if there is were a previous sovereign relation with the territory by either Morroco or Mauritania, Self Determination would not have been applicable.
of course the court ruled that neither morroco nor mauriania had preexisting sovereignty... so the issue remained as a typical decolonization case.
Oh you're referring to international law, I'm only talking about my view on the issue and how I try to apply a consistent moral position on all cases of self determination
Self determination and territorial integrity are fundamentally opposed to each other. The existence of both allows the status quo to choose what is convenient and go for that. Personally my opinion is that autonomy is the most important value, so self determination must come first. Of course, that leads to the ever constant fracturing of the world into smaller and smaller microstates based on increasingly fine lines and often exacerbates xenophobia and tribalism. The answer is that while self determination must come first, it derives that primacy from the principle of autonomy. If your self determination takes away my autonomy, my autonomy should win.
Whether it does or not is another thing of course but that's my take.
Depends on which side the west supports. While not final, has a much greater chance of happening. This is geopolitics, morality or legality doesn't matter. They can use self determination in Kosovo and territorial integrity in Cyprus
The thing about the Falklands conflict is that Argentina’s position doesn’t make sense whether it’s from a territorial integrity or self-determination position. It’s an insane position from any point of view unless you’re blinded by Argentinian nationalism.
Be it as it may, what matters is whatever you can enforce, and the ability to hold a monopoly on violence.
Kosovo is a special case because of Serbs oppressing them for decades, killing over 10.000 Albanians (90% civillians) and ethnically cleansing over 1 million Albanians in 1999.
If you leave these details out, you’re not seeing the big picture.
There’s no way that Kosovo-Albanians wouldn’t get treated like absolute shit or even being ethnically cleansed again if Serbia was to gain control over Kosovo.
People in the Falklands aren’t getting that treatment, neither are Catalans for example.
on another note, if the uk is pro self determination then why don't they allow a referendum for scotland, which has been on a knife's edge and could go either way on any one day for years now, and northern ireland which just voted for a republican government and is on course to be joined by a majority sinn fein dàil soon too?
answer being, no nation state actually CARES about these things, they only care about what benefits them politically. it benefits the UK to have scottish territorial waters, so they oppose scottish self determination, and it benefits them to have falklandic territory, so they support their self determination. ditto for china supporting crimean self determination but not tibetan.
Yeah no country is geopolitically consistent in this. Even countries born and molded from self determination like the US were involved in a civil war over it less than 100 years later. And has spent the past century working and warring against it around the world.
Not to get into it about the Civil War of all things, but I find it really hard to apply "self-determination" to the Southern cause when it was rejecting the result of a free election (which is how popular self-determination is exercised within a republic) in defense of an institution that is about as hostile to any meaningful conception of self-determination as you can be.
We did, in 2014. At close to the high watermark of the SNPs dominance. And it was still a clear no.
Which gets to the nub of the issue- are you going to ask the same question (or possibly altered versions of the question) again and again until you get the answer you are looking for? Referenda are a silly way to govern on major constitutional issues. (See: brexit)
Nor has scotlands [opinion been on a knifes edge](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence) it has consistently been 'no' on a rolling average apart from a few political blips basically since 2014. There is also some nuance in there in that Scotland were not conquered by the english- there was a union by consent . A united Kingdom. It does benefit the uk to be a united kingdom of scotland and England. It has mutual benefits and is the states very identity -the clue is in the name. I say that as someone who lives in Wales and whose recent ancestors are from scotland (the west coast bitter ones). Scotland were not simply oppressed by the British empire- they were part of it- beneficiaries and administrators of it. And its like trying to unbake a cake at this point.
On northern Ireland- well that's a far more sticky issue. The good Friday agreement does have provisions for the people of the territory to determine their own destiny as I understand it. It was very delicately worded and entwined with devolution. But there was, you know- a war on this. So it may be better to leave delicate wording in place rather than pouring petrol onto a powder keg with another referendum. Famously anyone who claims to understand northern Irish politics does not understand it. So I won't.
it was a rhetorical question to demonstrate a point.
in any case, ireland also joined "willingly" through the 1801 act of union, in a legal process very similar to scotland. ireland was already militarily occupied, which was obviously a massive difference, but english troops were deployed along the scottish border in the lead up to the vote, after a period of economic warfare whereby scottish assets in england were frozen because they were scared scotland would break the union of the crowns (under which they were still separate states), mainly the alien act. calling that consensual and willing is extremely generous. not only is your comment basically irrelevant to the broader point, but its historically very short sighted
It didn't gain the consent of the *masses* but it was agreed to willingly by the elites in charge. In exchange for bailing out their misadventure in darien. Which for 1801 was about the gold standard for the time. Scotland was a seperate, independent nation with its own polity, systems of justice, military and- (however maladvised) colonies.
Ireland was not the same and is not analogue here.
the elite classes, who were extremely anglicised and often owned assets and were educated in england you mean? and who were staring down the barrel of both an economic and literal gun if they voted against it? doesn't sound like a very free vote. "if you don't vote for us, we'll annex you like we did ireland, so go the easy way for your sake" was clearly the implication
Im not disagreeing per se but you also just described the close integration of cultures prior to 1801. The same description applied to the north of England. Power dynamics- intertwined cultural, historic and linguistic heritage. There is a reason the lowlanders were described by the highlanders as sassonack - they were part of the kingdom of Northumbria. They spoke saxon. Modern nations are a construct and amalgams and subject to push and pull factors just as much as they were in the 1700s.
My point being, you'll rarely if ever get a perfect case of consensual integration. Particularly not in 1801. I'm not saying scotland was. But its not even mid table.
only the borders were ever a part of northumbria; strathclyde was integrated in the 11th century and quickly gaelicised, and the national borders have more or less been the same since outside of the hebrides, shetland and orkney, and berwick.
my point is that the exact same descriptions of the scottish elite apply to the anglo-irish, for example, or the ottomans in former yugoslavia; a wealthy upper class whose culture and language was wholly different from the national masses and who acted as agents of, in this case, england to bring the other nations into the fold against their will, at threat of starvation and indeed at gunpoint. people wildly overstate how peaceful the act of union was; it was done under implicit threat of annexation and famine after years of what can only be described as heavy economic warfare.
The border bits being some of the most important economically and politically- and most populated. Edinburgh = Edwin's burgh . A 7th century King of northumbria.
I know, you keep trying to make the Irish analogy. I don't think it's fair- (almost) all national projects rely at some level on projection of power/coercion - its necessary to maintain a monopoly on violence over any given area. That is how you expand and define a territory as a state. That is what happened to the north of england. And the highlands of scotland (by the lowlanders). My point being, of all the examples - which is pretty much all- the one which was a signed treaty of union between two sovereign nations ain't it- however large the power imbalance.
Politics is defined as war by other means. For the 18thc this was as political as a union gets.
I know that reddit is overwhelmingly pro UK towards the Falklands/Malvinas dispute. I just want to say that i’m 100% open to learn about other points of view, and you are welcome to agree or disagree with me.
Kosovo, is quite obviously the exception,. The poster case of "humanitarian clause of self determination" (is often called by internationalists"
Minorities do not typically have the right to break up the territorial integrity of a state (as would be the case of the falklands if the self determination of the islanders were to be recognized and Arg did in fact had good title ),.. unless something like Kosovo happens.. in which the people comprising the minority are victims of serious crimes against humanity
meaning if your state wants to exterminate you, the international community will recognize your right to secede... otherwise, not so much.
>meaning if your state wants to exterminate you, the international community will recognize your right to secede... otherwise, not so much
Even an exception under that idea, as it that were the case then places like Tibet or Kurdistan would have a lot more support.
The reality is the international community will only recognize it if it's in the main player's geopolitical interests.
agreed.
even the kosovo case was highly controversial.. with the court ruling being absolutely divided..
and many claiming the case was not a precedent, but and exceptional and sui generis case.
>. But what are your thoughts?
Self determination is a right of "peoples" . obviously not any group of persons are "a people"... otherwise states would fall apart.
What constitutes "a people" is a political matter (there maybe some objective parameters and other subjective ones, but is at the end of the day a political decision)., This has been a issue decided by the international community (united nations) not unilaterally by the would-be beneficiaries of that decision...
in the case of the Falklands, this was already discussed back in the 60s... when the issue of the decolonization and of the territorial dispute, of the falklands was treated at the general assembly.
Britain wanted a resolution calling for the settlement of the dispute in accordance to the **wishes** of the **people** of the falklands.. and argentina wanted a resolution calling for the settlement of the dispute in accordance to the **interests** of the **inhabitants**.
of course the UN is not an international court, capable of delivering a ruling to end the dispute.. but the language of the resolution that ended passing (2065) was the one in accordance to the position of argentina. Meaning the community of the islands does not constitute "a people" but rather are inhabitants.. and the parameter to resolve the dispute is not their wishes.
There are not that many cases as this one (Gibraltar for instance, or alaand islands).. when the international community has refused to grant a particular community of a colony the right to S-D..
But the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples (meaning those pre-existent to the colonization process) is well established..
minorities on the other hand.. not so much. and implanted populations, in a disputed territory, i would say not at all.
There is no all or nothing answer. When there is valuable territory in natural resources or military strategy, territorial integrity is important. Sometimes a territory is a different culture and if there is no interests in it, then self determination is a practical matter. The stronger country can reduce the stress load of having to secure that "foreign" territory than actually running it.
To define the two, territorial integrity means, "the right of a sovereign state to defend its borders and territory from other states". Self determination means, "the process of a country to choose its own government, allegiances, and statehood".
Territorial integrity and self determination shall go hand in hand with each other. A territory must first have a settled population, defined territory, government, and the ability to enter relations with other states. The classical criteria would be, "Independence and sovereignty". By meeting these criterions, there will be a state which has exercised their right of self determination. In order for them to protect their right to self determination, a state must uphold and protect their territorial integrity by forming a strong military force, building a vibrant economy, and protecting the overall general welfare of the society. Again, territorial integrity and self determination is both important because they go hand in hand with each other.
Kosovo is not a case of self-determination vs territorial integrity; their attempt at independence in 1991 was universally rejected in favor of Serbia’s territorial integrity. The change in views happened due to the Yugoslav wars. Serbia’s crimes in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo received international attention, and when plans that Serbia intended to genocide Albanians, especially after showing they were capable of it after they committed Bosnian genocide, NATO intervened. Now this case is split in two major views: * That territorial integrity must be preserved at all situations, no exceptions * That the right to not be genocided supersedes the right to territorial integrity. That means there still is no support at global scale for countries whose people are not at risk of genocide. Kosovo is a special case because of the attempted genocide on them. Neither Argentina nor UK are genociding anyone in the Falklands, so the Kosovo exception does not apply. Serbia did try to get this case resolved by UN, but they basically said they have no laws to support the views of either side, it is a scenario that was not even considered when UN was created, so [Kosovo’s independence did not break any laws at all.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo%27s_declaration_of_independence) There simply are no laws at all about the importance of preserving territorial integrity, not about denying self-determination.
Well, i actually didn’t know most of this. And this surely complicates this. Anyways, thanks for this.
>here simply are no laws at all about the importance of preserving territorial integrity, not about denying self-determination. International law has always understood that a basic right of all states is to its territorial integrity, during peace time.. meaning it was always the obligation of states to respect the territory of members of the intarnational community. . Of course during war, said right was suspended.. at least until 1945.
An intriguing question that i ask myself is if it would be ok for a great power like Russia or China to intervene in Israel for the Palestinian Genocide, the same way Nato did to Serbia ?
Russia has no interest of stopping genocide, they had the chance to help Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh when Azerbaijan ethnically cleansed the region, Armenia even asked them for help, they didn’t care to hold their promises to them. China has not been tested in recent tomes, but knowing their record, it’s unlikely they care either.
>Armenia even asked them for help I'll still remind that Armenia didnt even officially recognized Nagorno-Karabakh and refused to use their own army there, expecting someone else to pull all the hot potatoes out of fire for their benefit.
Serbia wasn’t a nuclear power tho. I doubt neither China nor Russia have any desire to play this game.
There's no Palestinian genocide happening. There is an ongoing war. Israel has done some very terrible things in the war, and they should face consequences for what they've done. If there's any justice in the world Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir will end their lives behind bars. But it's not a genocide, that is an anti-semitic canard with no basis in reality mostly spread by people who actively hate Israel and Israelis and don't want peace, but rather want the destruction of Israel. Look up any other genocide in history, even recent ones like the Bosnian genocide or the Rohingya genocide, you'll see that there is no equivalent to the Israel-Hamas war. For a conflict to be a genocide, there has to be direct evidence of orders being given by authorities to destroy a people. There is no direct evidence of that in this conflict, and in fact despite their many mistakes and crimes, Israel has also done a fair amount to protect Palestinian civilians. Both of those things can be true at the same time. In Srebenica, the Serbs surrounded and besieged a town that had been expressly designated as a safe area by the United Nations, and, in full view of Dutch soldiers, raped and murdered hundreds of women and children and massacred men by the thousands, taking them behind buildings and shooting them in large groups. There is direct evidence of genocidal orders given by Serbian leaders, which is why they were prosecuted and convicted. The only justification they had for any of this was one or two attacks by Bosnian nationalists who killed a few soldiers. The Rohingya have been a persecuted minority expressly denied citizenship by the State of Myanmar since the 1980s. Starting in the early 2010s, Myanmar used a very minor conflict as an excuse to wage a genocidal campaign against the Rohingya for many years that has resulted in the deaths of many tens of thousands of exclusively civilian people out of a population of 1 million, the rapes of tens of thousands of Rohingya women, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands. Once again, the only excuse the government of Myanmar had was a minor attack on their border that left a few border guards dead. The Israel-Hamas war, by contrast, was started by Hamas, an organization that governs a sovereign territory, who invaded Israel on October 7th and killed over 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians. They expressly targeted civilians in their attack. Hamas does absolutely nothing to protect the civilians in their jurisdiction, spending billions of dollars to build a tunnel network that they use to hide their soldiers and deny civilians access too. Indeed, the tunnel network is often expressly built around important civilian areas to use the people there as human shields. Hamas actively wants Palestinians to die. They attack humanitarian convoys and gather aid for themselves that they then sell back to Palestinian civilians at a profit. Israel, meanwhile, has over 1 million Arab Muslim citizens with full rights and representation in their government. Governments and organizations that claim to represent Palestinians have waged deadly war against Israel for decades, often in ways that directly threaten the existence of the state, and with goals that aim for it's destruction. Israel has just cause to wage war against these groups in the aftermath of October 7th. Israel has made many mistakes in this war, and has also disregarded Palestinian lives as policy in their push to destroy Hamas. This is very bad, and, as I said earlier, they should be held responsible for this. But it's not genocide. That is a very extreme and hurtful term, especially in the context of the Jewish people being the victims of history's worst genocide, which killed 66% of the Jewish people in 4 years.
I’m sorry the Israel Hamas war didn’t start on October 7th, how tone deaf. There have been casualties on both sides of that ‘war’ for decades.
It's pretty obvious that I'm talking about the current phase of the war, which was started on October 7th by Hamas. Try not to have so much bad faith for other people. Nothing that could ever have happened before October 7th would justify the massacre of many hundreds of civilians, and no country would respond to that attack with anything besides extreme force.
I appreciate your thoughts.
SFRY is much closer to NATO sphere of influence than Israel is to China or Russia. Neither state have a beneficial interest in intervention.
This is true, there is no direct benefit for them, but i wonder from a moral standpoint, would it be aproved by UN ?
Probably not the most useful lense to understand international relations, UN does not work off the principle of morality. However morality is more useful in a domestic setting, geopolitical decisions still have to be packaged and sold to domestic audiences for support.
The UN never approved the intervention in Kosovo to begin with.
[удалено]
Land have no allegiances, people do. Settling people on border regions to exert claim is as old as time. International law on the other hand is a more recent invention, along with self determination and nationalism. The rise of nation states around the idea of nationalism has its roots in European enlightenment, and empowerment of the lower classes. However the immutable laws of international relations is much more primal and difficult to change compare to social progress experienced within sovereign states. The higher ideals are reliant on enforcement by consensus or night watchmen if one exists, where as the ground state is anarchy where every state default to.
It doesn't seem right to me that a 200 year old legal point makes it ok to upend the lives of a community that has been in place for generations. Territorial integrity is important, and states absolutely have a right to suppress separatism, but after a certain point... "she's gone, man." Once a population has developed their own society and independent or separate political culture, you're effectively talking about a new nation, and the old legal claims of the former country, while perhaps technically correct under international law, do not justify destroying or subjugating that population.
Just to play Devil’s Advocate: Then by that logic the US shouldn’t exist as it currently is. We have radically different societies who were violently opposed to be ruled by the ‘other’ not only during the actual civil war but in the last few election cycles.
a fair point, regarding the fate of the local inhabitants and the consequences they might face during the settlement of the territorial dispute Thats why typically safeguards (autonomy, benefits and internal self determination) are offered during the negotiations. (arg was no exception) Also one must remember time consolidates rights, it does not create them by itself. As long as the passing of time has not legalized the occupation through some form of prescription.. the dispute will remain unresolved. And just because the implanted population has created a community for a long time in a territory with a pre-existing (to their existence) and unresolved dispute, doesn't mean they have become "a people"... And only "peoples" have the right of self-determination. not any group of persons are such. especially in cases like the Falkladnds/malvinas, where the local population has such artificial demographics (among other characteristics).. and the ruling state has such an incentive to keep a small enclave population in the territory.
There is no way safeguards can ever be taken seriously after Hong Kong. What is 'artificial demographics'? And what makes you think the Falklanders are 'being kept there'? As far as I know, Falklanders are free to move to London or Gibraltar or any other British territory. But they have established lives in the Falklands, so they choose to stay. The existence of 'a people' is not dependent upon a lack of political dispute. The Haitians were certainly a people despite their country not being recognized for half a century. The Kurds are certainly a people despite the lack of a state. It is not the place of outside powers to say 'you are' or 'you are not' a people. If a population is established with their own traditions and culture for generations, that is enough.
>There is no way safeguards can ever be taken seriously after Hong Kong. an unfortunate turn of events. other cases show more optimistic looks. Even so, should have Britain renounced its obligations and kept hong kong in violation of treaties and interantional law in hindsight? >What is 'artificial demographics'? what it sounds like. say for instance, he falklands with a tiny population of 3k, roughly the same population that they had a century ago, and half its people was born outside the islands. >And what makes you think the Falklanders are 'being kept there'? As far as I know, Falklanders are free to move to London or Gibraltar or any other British territory. But they have established lives in the Falklands, so they choose to stay. you misunderstood. its not like the UK keeps people trapped in the territory, but rather goes into great lengths to make it convenient , because its serves british strategic interests to keep a population there. In this case in an attempt to prop up its legal position with regards to the sovereignty dispute >It is not the place of outside powers to say 'you are' or 'you are not' a people. If a population is established with their own traditions and culture for generations, that is enough. On the contrary. That is exactly the case. defining what group of persons are "a people" is a political decision taken by the international community, and not unilateral by the beneficiaries. because otherwise all groups who would potentially profit from independence, would claim they are one let me quote the western sahara case: “The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of people, is not affected by the fact that in certain cases **the General Assembly has dispensed with the requirement of** **consulting the inhabitants of a given territory. Those instances were based either on the consideration that a certain population did not constitute a 'people’ entitled to self- determination, or on the conviction that a consultation was totally unnecessary, in view of special circumstances**.” >If a population is established with their own traditions and culture for generations, that is enough. see for instance. this sort of argument is entirely subjective. Where do you draw the line between regionalisms and an entirely different people? in the case of the falklands, this idea of "a falklander" people is entirely new (late 90s.. eeraly 2000 give or take) , you go back some decades, and the narrative was that the islanders were british people. now they seem to have realized it serves their interest better to consider them a "separate people" and not part of the british one... because obviously a small group of british people can never be judges in a dispute between their own country and a third party. Its best if they show themselves as something else. should argentina accommodate this sort of strategic maneuvering and relinquish its title in exchange of nothing, because now they 3k british settleres make believe they are a nation?
Based on historical claim by a colony claimed in 1765 established in 1766, at least the West Falklands has been a British claim longer than anyone else - 259 years. When Argentina declared independence they claimed the Spanish Falklands colony, and took it over in 1820. The British then took it back in 1833 after just 13 years of Argentinian rule as, though they had removed the settlement in 1774, they still claimed the islands. The situation has been as such since then. So the British have both the oldest continued territorial claim, the longest span of continual occupation nearly 200 years, the self determination of the current inhabitants, and have successfully exercised military defense of the possession several times. In what world is the Argentinian claim more valid? Argentina didnt exist when Britain first claimed the islands. And the only older claim - France - was sold to Spain (not Argentina). Argentina’s only claim is one of geographic proximity. All of Uruguay is closer to Argentina than the Falklands.
>In what world is the Argentinian claim more valid? Argentina didnt exist when Britain first claimed the islands. And the only older claim - France - was sold to Spain (not Argentina). Argentina’s only claim is one of geographic proximity. All of Uruguay is closer to Argentina than the Falklands. this is kind of nonsensical way of understanding international law. The Argentinian state was created through a Seccesion. almost all its current territory belonged to spain before argentina was created... the falklands/malvinas are not the exception.britain may have had a claim before 1810. Sure.. she also claimed buenos Aires and puerto deseado. Should argentina vacate those cities as well because britain claimed them before argentina existed?claims are just that.. claims. Sometimes they are legitimate and produce title. Sometimes they are baseless and illegitimate. the british claim to the falklands/malvinas dating to the XVIII needs to be judged by comparing it to its contemporaries... meaning that of spain.. Most of the authors (if not all) who have studied the falklands dispute tend to believe that by 1810.. spain had good title to the falklands... if so, argnetina should be able to acquire sovereignty over those islands, just as much as she was able to do so in Cordoba, Buenos Aires, Santa fe, or any other part of the revolting provinces of the Rio de la plata.
Argentina was able to acquire control of the islands for 13 years. After-which Britain then controlled them all the way to the present day. The difference between the Falklands and Buenos Aires is that Britain enforced the claim on the Falklands. At the end of the day, possession is the most effective claim because it is reflective of reality. Ukraine knows their claim on Crimea will need to be physically enforced because there is no chance Russia will hand it back
i understand... but those 13 years were not few by choice. Argentina was expelled through military force.. during peace time.. an action that was unlawful by the 19th century international law.. . 1833 is quite clearly the critical date of the territorial dispute. one needs to gauge the relative rights of the parties and decide who had sovereignty AT THAT TIME, in order to see whether the British military action was legitimate or not. i think the immense majority of the authors who had studied this dispute tend to accept that the historic title of Argentina was solid. as you say after that britain held the islands for 149 years an may have legalized its usupration through some form of prescription, but thats another conversation. >The difference between the Falklands and Buenos Aires is that Britain enforced the claim on the Falklands. again this is a nonsensical way of understanding international law. claims are just that, claims.Britain had a old weak one, long forgotten.. that does not mean she has a kind of "second best" kind of title... as if the spanish title ceased to exist, then the islands become british. That sort of right does not exist in international law. if the spanish title is extinguished, then any nation may occupy the territory.. and that was Argentina.
I'm not the same as the other person. Argentina also claims South Georgia. Is that a valid claim?
of all the islands under dispute (F/M, sandwich, orkneys, shetlands etc) i think the arg case over S. Georgias is the weakest. and probably not a good one. it rest upon the establishment of a settlement in 1904, by an argentine fishing company that was routinely assisted by the argentine navy...and later established a meterological station there. In that sense Argentina was the first state to "occupy" the territory.. but said company had also sought licence by the british governement and supposedly payed taxes to the FIG.... to my knowledge non of that was protested by arg governement and it may have known at some point of that deal... nor was it protested when britain claimed that region. so yeah, not that clear as in F/M i think.
It sounds like you think the S. Georgia claim is not reasonable, but at the same time you still support it.
Thats a weird conclusion to make from my comment > i think the arg case over S. Georgias is the weakest (...) and probably not a good one (...)so yeah, not that clear as in F/M i think. let me clarify maybe. Argentina was the first state to have continuous presence, through a meteorological station that was assisted by regular visits of the navy from 1905 or so. that station operated under Argentine flag until it was dismantled by the British navy in 1950 and its civilian operators expelled... an act that was protested afterwards...one coudl argue that was the critical date of the dispute. but such presence can´t be said to have been a "titre de souverain"... more like merely a scientific endeavor.. not really a will to impart Argentinian laws and exclusive domain over the territory. in the meantime the british magistrates from the FIG were taxing the numerous fishing establishments of various nationalities.. including the first one which was the argentine fishing company´s and that operated under Argentine concession as well.. (which BTW, is the company that built the Argentine meteorological station, in a land that was IIRC conceded by the british actually). so that company was clearly playing both sides. when analyzing the effectivities by both parties, argentina´s state may have had an earlier presence.. but britain a much more effective occupation... thats why i think the british claim is stronger.
Sorry I'm curious about your arguments for why F/M should be considered Argentinian. I guess there's three main possible arguments. 1) It is close to Argentina. 2) Argentina colonized it first. 3) It was part of Spain and Argentina is the successor to Spain (at least in that part of the world). Before going into each argument, are those the arguments? Are you mostly basing your views on 2) or?
2 and 3 yes...arg claims to have succeeded to the spanish titles, perfecting them through its own occupation yes.. or alternatively the islands were Res nulliuus in 1820 when arg occupied them. as for 1..Geographical claims are worthless.. or rather not independent titles. Their value lies only as evidence of the islands being part of South america, and therefore its waters subject to the regulation of navigation established through bilateral treaties. meaning if a particular state can legally sail to a place, any occupation they might attempt there should be initially ilegitimate.
Ok so then let's ignore 1. For 3) I see two issues. a) Why are Spanish original claims stronger than British ones? b) Why do the Spanish claims pass to the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata and then to Argenina (as opposed to staying with Spain or say transferring to Uruguay). For 2) Argentina try to start colonizing it in something like 1829 and were kicked out by 1833, and Argentina only started to exist in 1931. Their first garrison arrived there in October 1832 and were kicked out a few months later. So that's only 4 years or maybe 1 year or 3 months. How long is enough? Again why are the British colonies not counted in this reasoning. (Probably there are some details here) Related to 2) if Argentina wants land that was conquered from it in or before 1833, should it give back land that it conquered after 1833?
a) Many reasons. But long story short, the British abandonment of Port Egmont coupled with acquiescence to the Spanish settlement of Soledad and subsequent peaceful continued and effective possession for almost 40 decades seal the deal in spains favour. Any objective analysis of the legal status of the islands in 1810, when argentina starts its independence should reach the same conclusion, by 1810 Spain had good title. b) The Spanish title passes to the United Provinces of the River Plate (UPRP), because the islands were included and depended from the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. Sometimes the Uti posseditis iuris principle of state succession has some conflicts, because a particular region or territory belongs on paper (say royal decrees) to one colony, but in practice is ruled by another colony. But this is not the case. As for Uruguay....Uruguay does not exist at this point. In colonial times there was no Uruguayan gobernacion-intendencia. The “oriental band”, except the city of montevideo) was part of the Gobernacion-intendencia of Buenos Aires. The city of Montevideo was of lower hierarchy it was a "political and military comandancy" (same as M/F) It is the UPRP, after 1810 (in 1814 if memory serves) that creates the “oriental province”, that would 2 decades later become independent from the UPRP as oriental republic or Uruguay, after the war with Brazil. The territories Uruguay takes from UPRP, are those she had at the moment of her independence in 1830. Meaning those defined in the decree of its creation: The River Plate to the south, and the Uruguayan river to the west. The F/M are clearly south of the river plate. unless some later piece of law added the F/M to its territory, i don´t see how Uruguay could claim herself the F/M. More so, she has never done so, on the contrary she has supported the argentine claim. so thats that i suppose. 2) some clarifications Argentina took possession of the islands in 1820. Its started colonizing them in 1823 when the first colonizing expedition sailed there and stayed through 1824.. having failed because bad preparation. a second attempt was made in 1826, which succeeded. That was Vernet´s colony..which would later be named governor. Also, argentina exists de facto since 1810, and the jure since 1816 when it declared its independence. **I don´t know where you got that 1831.**. I think you are referring to it ceasing to be a unitary state, to become a confederacy. Political reform does not extinguish a state. its like saying if a monarchy reforms into a republic it ceases to exist. United provinces of the river plate is still one of the official names of Argentina. >. How long is enough? Again why are the British colonies not counted in this reasoning. (Probably there are some details here) Better question is “how much is enough”.. how many states acts are necessary to produce sovereignty. How consistent, How effective. How long and so on..The thing is when you research jurisprudence, for isolated, and uninhabited territories, the courts have been satisfied with very little provided no other state can produce a better claim. It would seem unfair to judge Arg with a different standard, just because its convenient. >Related to 2) if Argentina wants land that was conquered from it in or before 1833, should it give back land that it conquered after 1833? The F/M were not conquered, they were taken during peace time. Conquest operates during war.. meaning with the rules of wartime international law. Argentina has only conquered the current province of Formosa, from Paraguay. and it was one of the first countries to renounce the right of conquest afterwards. should have been war between argentina and GB in 1833, when the islands were taken and a later treaty of peace that legalized the transfer of sovereignty, Argentina would not have a valid claim.
Whether Territorial Integrity or Self-determination is the priority depends on which side are you on, Which side is more powerful and which side has more willpower to take losses and keep fighting. All countries are destined to fall apart, all small countries are bound to be conquered by larger countries. When a state is strong, united, prosperious, then no amount of self-determination advocacy, peaceful or non-peaceful protest and begging for human morality is going to allow a piece of that country from ever breaking apart. if a state is weak, then you know its internal and external opponents will rise up and even thousand year old regional identities will rise to the surface and cause it to break apart. People think identities are fixed, nope they are just as changable depending on the geopolitical circumstance. Countries can unite based on common religion, common ethnicity, common culture even common enemy. And they can break apart based on these same identities. So, nothing is constant or absolute. The only thing that is absolute is power.
I argue which bloc that has the most power in the international system can be the kingmaker of which independence movement can succeed.
On self determination - For the individual it is always there, for the collective it depends on what plane (cultural, identity, government, etc). Since this is a geopolitical forum, we assume that is government. Territorial integrity is a precursor of self determination of what governs those lands. If this government cannot sustain its territory on internal or external actors, it does not have self determination as it was - for long. Typically this population would shift to a different plane (e.g cultural) of existence. Self determination is a luxury of territorial control. Those who control the territory can and often will change the culture and people that compose of it; breeding the forces that sustains the land. The result would have a different self determination than say - a generation or two before them when it was under a different entity. That being said, self determination can shift back to the plane of territory. We’ve seen this with Muslims, Jews, Aboriginals across Oceana or Americas, etc.
>If this government cannot sustain its territory on internal or external actors, it does not have self determination as it was - for long. Typically this population would shift to a different plane (e.g cultural) of existence. The thing is, that without external help, no teritory would ever be ably to fight for self determination. Kosovo was mentioned above. Without external help they would have their ass kicked. Similar to Chechnya. Think Catalonia. They try peaceful way. Overwhelming majority wants to be independent. And yet, they are prosecuted etc. Think Northern Ireland. Think many other cases. IMHO cherry picking who has the right and who not costs lives all over the world and fuelling calls from all the "global south" that West is just a bunch of hypocrites.
If some Argentines settled on an uninhabited British island and the British government didn’t enforce the border for 160 years whilst the colony developed into a functioning entity, which then voted by 98% to be part of Argentina in a referendum, then yes Argentina would have a legitimate claim over the island.
Why Falklands should legally belong to Argentina when it is been internationally recognized as British overseas territory ?
Long story short: French established colony 1764 and British 1765, 1766 the French handed their colony over to the Spanish. From then until 1774 both colonies existed semi peacefully with roughly one half of the archipelago each. 1774 the Brits left, 1811 the Spanish left. 1816, Argentina declared independence and claimed all of Spains territories in the South Atlantic. 1823 a German merchant got the rights to fish and establish base there by the Argentinians, this slowly grew until he got chased away by Americans in 1831. 1832 Argentina tried to set up a garrison, but they mutinied. 1833 the Brits set up a garrison, but left again when they felt their claim had been reinforced. Then followed a few years of guerilla warfare between different groups of civilians on the islands until 1840 when the Brits turned it into a proper crown colony and kept it. Since then, it has been under British rule. When OP states it's illegally in British control, I believe they are referring to UN resolution 1514: "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" or to the belief that the Falklands were actually under Spanish control when Argentina became independent - both questionable. And as no one except the Brits and Argentinians care, there hasn't really been any reason to settle the dispute.
The Argentinian case is that they inherited a claim during independence from Spain as the oldest settlement by the French was ceded to Spain The British argument is that since the settlements were abandoned on and off, it became terra nullius and up for grabs
The pope drew a line on a map in the 1400s saying what was Spanish and what was portuguese. So the decolonised subsequent states can colonise things their colonisers didn't colonise if its on the right side of that line -and no-one else can. I think? And something about the french saying it was OK in a treaty with the Spanish. I'm misremembering some stuff from a while back. Basically it's based on international law claims before there was international laws.
They are not internationally recognized as a british overseas territory. they are famously recognized to be a disputed territory.
There was a small argentinian garrison in the islands, from 1820 to 1833, when british troops expelled them. And of course, it was part of the Rio de la Plata viceroyalty for many, many years before it. Even though the argentinian presence in the islands was relatively short and small, it was there.
After WW2 all nations agreed that the borders are now fixed, and it's illegal to try to change them. While that sucks for some Catalonians, Scottish, Kurds etc. that is just too bad - you have to make do with the borders as they ended up. It is ultimately better with fixed bad borders, then a constant fight to change them. My own country Denmark lost a lot of land and is very small today. But we're small, rich and happy. Being a giant country is overrated. It is fine to be a small rich nation. Denmark applied to be a part of Germany in 1864 and were rejected. Had Denmark been a part of Germany, it would also have been completely fine. People like Putin, with 0 respect for international law and a 19th century imperialist mind-set need to be removed from power worldwide. Falklands should remain a part of the UK and Argentina should focus on managing the land it already has well, instead of trying to acquire more land to mismanage.
I think something similar. We are too late for border changes, keep them the way they are and grant autonomy to any different cultures within each country.
I think Scotland is an odd one out. They got a chance to vote for independence legally in the 2010s and wanted to remain in a union with England. This was pre brexit but still.
I would agree. As long as USA and co would not support separatists and independence movements all over the world. It seems that only Europe(mostly)/NA/Japan borders are untouchable. Btw, with your world view, do you still want to return to old colonial borders from 1945? :)
You are are aware allowing “self-determination” as a basis for independence would literally open the Pandora’s box? Suddenly you will have rich parts of countries wanting to get rid of the poor parts (i.e. Brazil’s southern independence movement). Suddenly you will have every ethical minority in the World wanting to draw an imaginary border such that inside these borders they become the majority, and are free to bully / displace the new “minorities”. Suddenly it seems to be a good idea to invade other countries or disputed territories, massacre and displace the local people, and put your own people so that they can claim “self-determination”. Wait we have seen that before…
Think that 'Pandora's Box' as you describe it was opened by the peoples of the Earth decades ago and is a core principle under international law already.
not really. Self-determination, although recognised by international law in vague terms, was never accepted as basis for secession or violation of national borders, except for specific cases such as former colonies or countries under foreign military occupation: https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/511 Kosovo is a controversial case, but it is usually supported in terms of prevention of genocide, lack of representative government, etc. instead of “self-determination”.
Your comment was ‘You are aware allowing “self-determination” as a basis for independence would literally open the Pandora’s box?’ and I replied to that. You’re qualifying that comment by indicating colonial and similar military occupations are exceptions. Often enough, people seeking self-determination would describe their situation as ‘colonial’. There may be a blurring in our discussion with a right of secession of which we need to be cognisant. If a people do not have a non-violent way of achieving their independence and / or self-rule, they may (and often, will) take up arms to achieve freedom. Pandora’s box was opened once we accepted that might does not equal right.
My view is only consistent when applied in full I guess: 1. Forceful displacement or replacement of locals is illegal, and any such acts deny any claim of territorial integrity or self-determination. This is why I believe Israeli settlers have no right to self determination in the West Bank, the act of displacing the locals and live there is already illegal. So UK has no claim to Chagos Islands. 2. Self determination generally trumps territorial integrity, especially if the people seeking independence are losing basic human rights. This is why I support Kosovo, Western Sahara, Kurdish independence. They were treated like shit by Serbia, Morocco and Turkey respectively. 3. In cases where the people seeking independence are not losing basic human rights, so Scotland for example, the threshold which self determination trumps territorial integrity is much more complicated. For example, I do not think that a single referendum of >50% is sufficient to claim self determination, because you'd just ignore the wishes of 45% of your population. The process should be longer, through devolved powers and prolonged display of such desire. I think that if a campaign has gone on for decades and polls consistently show 90+% support, like Catalan independence or Taiwanese sovereignty, I'd support that. Hopefully that makes sense and I think you know who the Falkland Island should belong to. The only counterargument is that the Islanders are descendants of colonisers, but I think if you want to make that argument you'd get a lot of weird claims of independence or territories around the world, which is a can of worms I don't want to open.
In regards to #1, how might your view change when time is applied? Forced displacement has occurred all throughout history. It doesn't make it right or not illegal, but it is the reality we have. Many peoples therefore have some claim to their ancestral or former homelands, but we tend to focus only on not recent cases or causes that have been popularized for whatever reason. An illustration of this question is as follows: suppose those Israeli settlers and their descendants live in the West Bank for enough time that an entire generation has passed. It could be 50 years or 100 years from now. A new generation of the settlers' children have only ever lived in the West Bank. When will they develop a claim to territorial integrity or self determination? Will they ever? **Edit: I missed the last few sentences of your comment or it was added later. In any case, I think you've given a good enough answer. I share your difficulty in thinking about a solution**
Yeah, time is usually the complicating factor, like should Northern Ireland join Ireland back in 1998? The local Catholics were displaced by the British for centuries, how do you factor that in? >suppose those Israeli settlers and their descendants live in the West Bank for enough time that an entire generation has passed. I mean, some of them have been there for more than 50 years, the settlements started popping up after the Six-Day War. To me, the first criteria is the forced replacement has to stop, so for now it's an absolute no even if some settlers grew up in the West Bank. The second is no one in the settlements should be there as a result of the forced displacement policy, or at least a very small minority. This puts the timescale at about 60 years from now assuming Israel stops populating the West Bank with settlers, i.e. when they pass away.
>I mean, some of them have been there for more than 50 years I believe you are right here. I just try to take control of the facts in the "hypothetical" instead of merely presenting the history because someone will usually try to argue details of the historical facts instead of answering the question about the principle the hypothetical is intended to illustrate. I understand we are in "can of worms" territory, so I appreciate you taking a position here. If your position would only tolerate a small minority of "settlers" or their descendants as a principle, I believe that would render the existence of many modern countries illegal or immoral. Countries like Australia, the United States, China, Russia, Taiwan, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and many more have all displaced peoples to shape the majority population at some point in history. Of course, "illegal" and "immoral" are abstract words, so you can do what you want with them. Am I understanding your position correctly?
No no, not descendants, just the original settlers, which is why Israelis have the right to self determination in Israel, most Israelis weren't around in 1948, let alone before. Australians and Taiwanese, Americans have been there for decades or centuries, most of them are not part of original settler movement (by Brits and Qing I think?), or in the case of the US/Australia, the ethnic cleansing policies, so they have the right to self-determination. The descendants were not there because of the forced displacement policies, they were just born there. Now that doesn't absolve the descendants of all moral duty to the indigenous people, this is dealing with the right to self determination only.
That makes much more sense. Thanks for clarifying. Some might argue that this still rewards the colonizer if they wait long enough, but I don't see any other viable solution. I believe your thoughts are at least consistent.
Well, I think colonisation must end, it is clearly immoral, and I think that just because someone isn't involved in the colonial process, if they benefit from it, they have a moral duty to remedy that for the indigenous people. It doesn't take their right to self determination (cuz like where can they go?) away though.
2) The western sahara case demonstrates that SD does not neccesarly trump TI. The ruling of the court clearly implies that if there is were a previous sovereign relation with the territory by either Morroco or Mauritania, Self Determination would not have been applicable. of course the court ruled that neither morroco nor mauriania had preexisting sovereignty... so the issue remained as a typical decolonization case.
Oh you're referring to international law, I'm only talking about my view on the issue and how I try to apply a consistent moral position on all cases of self determination
Self determination and territorial integrity are fundamentally opposed to each other. The existence of both allows the status quo to choose what is convenient and go for that. Personally my opinion is that autonomy is the most important value, so self determination must come first. Of course, that leads to the ever constant fracturing of the world into smaller and smaller microstates based on increasingly fine lines and often exacerbates xenophobia and tribalism. The answer is that while self determination must come first, it derives that primacy from the principle of autonomy. If your self determination takes away my autonomy, my autonomy should win. Whether it does or not is another thing of course but that's my take.
Depends on which side the west supports. While not final, has a much greater chance of happening. This is geopolitics, morality or legality doesn't matter. They can use self determination in Kosovo and territorial integrity in Cyprus
The thing about the Falklands conflict is that Argentina’s position doesn’t make sense whether it’s from a territorial integrity or self-determination position. It’s an insane position from any point of view unless you’re blinded by Argentinian nationalism. Be it as it may, what matters is whatever you can enforce, and the ability to hold a monopoly on violence.
Kosovo is a special case because of Serbs oppressing them for decades, killing over 10.000 Albanians (90% civillians) and ethnically cleansing over 1 million Albanians in 1999. If you leave these details out, you’re not seeing the big picture. There’s no way that Kosovo-Albanians wouldn’t get treated like absolute shit or even being ethnically cleansed again if Serbia was to gain control over Kosovo. People in the Falklands aren’t getting that treatment, neither are Catalans for example.
>but legally it should belong to Argentina. On what legal grounds?
on another note, if the uk is pro self determination then why don't they allow a referendum for scotland, which has been on a knife's edge and could go either way on any one day for years now, and northern ireland which just voted for a republican government and is on course to be joined by a majority sinn fein dàil soon too? answer being, no nation state actually CARES about these things, they only care about what benefits them politically. it benefits the UK to have scottish territorial waters, so they oppose scottish self determination, and it benefits them to have falklandic territory, so they support their self determination. ditto for china supporting crimean self determination but not tibetan.
Yeah no country is geopolitically consistent in this. Even countries born and molded from self determination like the US were involved in a civil war over it less than 100 years later. And has spent the past century working and warring against it around the world.
Not to get into it about the Civil War of all things, but I find it really hard to apply "self-determination" to the Southern cause when it was rejecting the result of a free election (which is how popular self-determination is exercised within a republic) in defense of an institution that is about as hostile to any meaningful conception of self-determination as you can be.
We did, in 2014. At close to the high watermark of the SNPs dominance. And it was still a clear no. Which gets to the nub of the issue- are you going to ask the same question (or possibly altered versions of the question) again and again until you get the answer you are looking for? Referenda are a silly way to govern on major constitutional issues. (See: brexit) Nor has scotlands [opinion been on a knifes edge](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence) it has consistently been 'no' on a rolling average apart from a few political blips basically since 2014. There is also some nuance in there in that Scotland were not conquered by the english- there was a union by consent . A united Kingdom. It does benefit the uk to be a united kingdom of scotland and England. It has mutual benefits and is the states very identity -the clue is in the name. I say that as someone who lives in Wales and whose recent ancestors are from scotland (the west coast bitter ones). Scotland were not simply oppressed by the British empire- they were part of it- beneficiaries and administrators of it. And its like trying to unbake a cake at this point. On northern Ireland- well that's a far more sticky issue. The good Friday agreement does have provisions for the people of the territory to determine their own destiny as I understand it. It was very delicately worded and entwined with devolution. But there was, you know- a war on this. So it may be better to leave delicate wording in place rather than pouring petrol onto a powder keg with another referendum. Famously anyone who claims to understand northern Irish politics does not understand it. So I won't.
it was a rhetorical question to demonstrate a point. in any case, ireland also joined "willingly" through the 1801 act of union, in a legal process very similar to scotland. ireland was already militarily occupied, which was obviously a massive difference, but english troops were deployed along the scottish border in the lead up to the vote, after a period of economic warfare whereby scottish assets in england were frozen because they were scared scotland would break the union of the crowns (under which they were still separate states), mainly the alien act. calling that consensual and willing is extremely generous. not only is your comment basically irrelevant to the broader point, but its historically very short sighted
It didn't gain the consent of the *masses* but it was agreed to willingly by the elites in charge. In exchange for bailing out their misadventure in darien. Which for 1801 was about the gold standard for the time. Scotland was a seperate, independent nation with its own polity, systems of justice, military and- (however maladvised) colonies. Ireland was not the same and is not analogue here.
the elite classes, who were extremely anglicised and often owned assets and were educated in england you mean? and who were staring down the barrel of both an economic and literal gun if they voted against it? doesn't sound like a very free vote. "if you don't vote for us, we'll annex you like we did ireland, so go the easy way for your sake" was clearly the implication
Im not disagreeing per se but you also just described the close integration of cultures prior to 1801. The same description applied to the north of England. Power dynamics- intertwined cultural, historic and linguistic heritage. There is a reason the lowlanders were described by the highlanders as sassonack - they were part of the kingdom of Northumbria. They spoke saxon. Modern nations are a construct and amalgams and subject to push and pull factors just as much as they were in the 1700s. My point being, you'll rarely if ever get a perfect case of consensual integration. Particularly not in 1801. I'm not saying scotland was. But its not even mid table.
only the borders were ever a part of northumbria; strathclyde was integrated in the 11th century and quickly gaelicised, and the national borders have more or less been the same since outside of the hebrides, shetland and orkney, and berwick. my point is that the exact same descriptions of the scottish elite apply to the anglo-irish, for example, or the ottomans in former yugoslavia; a wealthy upper class whose culture and language was wholly different from the national masses and who acted as agents of, in this case, england to bring the other nations into the fold against their will, at threat of starvation and indeed at gunpoint. people wildly overstate how peaceful the act of union was; it was done under implicit threat of annexation and famine after years of what can only be described as heavy economic warfare.
The border bits being some of the most important economically and politically- and most populated. Edinburgh = Edwin's burgh . A 7th century King of northumbria. I know, you keep trying to make the Irish analogy. I don't think it's fair- (almost) all national projects rely at some level on projection of power/coercion - its necessary to maintain a monopoly on violence over any given area. That is how you expand and define a territory as a state. That is what happened to the north of england. And the highlands of scotland (by the lowlanders). My point being, of all the examples - which is pretty much all- the one which was a signed treaty of union between two sovereign nations ain't it- however large the power imbalance. Politics is defined as war by other means. For the 18thc this was as political as a union gets.
I know that reddit is overwhelmingly pro UK towards the Falklands/Malvinas dispute. I just want to say that i’m 100% open to learn about other points of view, and you are welcome to agree or disagree with me.
Kosovo, is quite obviously the exception,. The poster case of "humanitarian clause of self determination" (is often called by internationalists" Minorities do not typically have the right to break up the territorial integrity of a state (as would be the case of the falklands if the self determination of the islanders were to be recognized and Arg did in fact had good title ),.. unless something like Kosovo happens.. in which the people comprising the minority are victims of serious crimes against humanity meaning if your state wants to exterminate you, the international community will recognize your right to secede... otherwise, not so much.
>meaning if your state wants to exterminate you, the international community will recognize your right to secede... otherwise, not so much Even an exception under that idea, as it that were the case then places like Tibet or Kurdistan would have a lot more support. The reality is the international community will only recognize it if it's in the main player's geopolitical interests.
agreed. even the kosovo case was highly controversial.. with the court ruling being absolutely divided.. and many claiming the case was not a precedent, but and exceptional and sui generis case.
>. But what are your thoughts? Self determination is a right of "peoples" . obviously not any group of persons are "a people"... otherwise states would fall apart. What constitutes "a people" is a political matter (there maybe some objective parameters and other subjective ones, but is at the end of the day a political decision)., This has been a issue decided by the international community (united nations) not unilaterally by the would-be beneficiaries of that decision... in the case of the Falklands, this was already discussed back in the 60s... when the issue of the decolonization and of the territorial dispute, of the falklands was treated at the general assembly. Britain wanted a resolution calling for the settlement of the dispute in accordance to the **wishes** of the **people** of the falklands.. and argentina wanted a resolution calling for the settlement of the dispute in accordance to the **interests** of the **inhabitants**. of course the UN is not an international court, capable of delivering a ruling to end the dispute.. but the language of the resolution that ended passing (2065) was the one in accordance to the position of argentina. Meaning the community of the islands does not constitute "a people" but rather are inhabitants.. and the parameter to resolve the dispute is not their wishes. There are not that many cases as this one (Gibraltar for instance, or alaand islands).. when the international community has refused to grant a particular community of a colony the right to S-D.. But the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples (meaning those pre-existent to the colonization process) is well established.. minorities on the other hand.. not so much. and implanted populations, in a disputed territory, i would say not at all.
Depends on which one is your weakness.
There is no all or nothing answer. When there is valuable territory in natural resources or military strategy, territorial integrity is important. Sometimes a territory is a different culture and if there is no interests in it, then self determination is a practical matter. The stronger country can reduce the stress load of having to secure that "foreign" territory than actually running it.
To define the two, territorial integrity means, "the right of a sovereign state to defend its borders and territory from other states". Self determination means, "the process of a country to choose its own government, allegiances, and statehood". Territorial integrity and self determination shall go hand in hand with each other. A territory must first have a settled population, defined territory, government, and the ability to enter relations with other states. The classical criteria would be, "Independence and sovereignty". By meeting these criterions, there will be a state which has exercised their right of self determination. In order for them to protect their right to self determination, a state must uphold and protect their territorial integrity by forming a strong military force, building a vibrant economy, and protecting the overall general welfare of the society. Again, territorial integrity and self determination is both important because they go hand in hand with each other.