The historical basis for "X" Independence
- Thread starter NedimNapoleon
- Start date
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
No it is not stupid. Every single right requires the ability to make use of it.
Right and the ability to make use of it are both indispensable in order to enforce your right in practice.
Right is legal theory, the ability to make use of it is legal practice / reality.
Do you want some examples?
=================================
Well, a few examples:
The right to freedom of speech.
The right to lawful defence / the right to self-defence.
The human right to life - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life
The human dignity / the right to dignity.
The right to vote in free democratic elections.
Etc., etc. Each of these rights requires the ability of making use of it.
Should I further explain?
Maybe just one of them at first - the human right to life.
Jews during the Holocaust had the right to life, but they did not have the ability to enforce their right in practice in Nazi-occupied Europe. This alone doesn't mean that their right did not exist - you do not say that the very idea of a right to life of Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe is beyond stupid, don't you?
Of course you don't. Because the existence of a right and the ability to enforce respecting / observing this right in reality are two different things.
This pattern applies to every single right not just to right to life.
And when it comes to the ability to enforce your right - there are many possible reasons why you might be unable to enforce your right. You might be deprived of the ability to make use of it by someone else (for example when a dictator takes power in a up-to-that-point democratic state). Or you might be unable to make use of it by yourself (for example when someone attacks you and you are unarmed and too weak to make use of your right to lawful defence).
People might be unable to enforce their right to political self-determination e.g. by some political power - Catalans might be unable to enforce their right to political self-determination due to Spanish policy of denying them "permission" to make use of their right - maybe even with use of military force if necessary.
Of course they might still start an uprising and fight for their right with use of force - maybe even they have some chance to win.
In the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Jews fought for their right to dignity (and maybe also for their right to life - but they knew they would die anyway).
Etc., etc.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Of course we can imagine situations when various rights collide with each other and we have to choose between them because we can't respect both / all of them at the same time.
For example when you go to war to enforce the right to political self-determination of your group of people (like Catalans), then you definitely threaten another right - the right to life, because war is about killing and not only soldiers / fighters on both sides die, but also civilians - including such civilians who don't give a damn about whether Catalonia is independent or not.
So you better think twice which right is more important before you fight for enforcement of some right which collides with some other right or rights. Thus I am not saying that the right of national / political self-determination is the most important one and that we should always support those who fight for it.
For example when you go to war to enforce the right to political self-determination of your group of people (like Catalans), then you definitely threaten another right - the right to life, because war is about killing and not only soldiers / fighters on both sides die, but also civilians - including such civilians who don't give a damn about whether Catalonia is independent or not.
So you better think twice which right is more important before you fight for enforcement of some right which collides with some other right or rights. Thus I am not saying that the right of national / political self-determination is the most important one and that we should always support those who fight for it.
@Masada: Yes, I meant precedent, not predence.
The "rules" didn't change. To use an obvious example: the Netherlands (i.e. Dutch Republic) didn't exist prior to 1648, when its independence was recognized. The Dutch elite was ofcourse well aware of this, so 17th to 19th century "historians" were keen to pointing towards the Batavi, who had engaged in a rebellion against Roman oppression - and failing to notice that these Batavi
a) didn't succeed in rebelling; and
b) the only relation between said Batavi and the 17th century republic is an area called "Betuwe", which is apparently etymologically related to a Batavan origin (unless ofcourse that is made up as well).
I don't see why... Most post-colonial states are the result of said right (replacing foreign government with self-government, so to speak). Unfortunately most of the borders of these postcolonial states still to a large extent confirm to the colonial borders, giving rise to a multitude of conflicts, both between these postcolonial states as well as internally.
The "rules" didn't change. To use an obvious example: the Netherlands (i.e. Dutch Republic) didn't exist prior to 1648, when its independence was recognized. The Dutch elite was ofcourse well aware of this, so 17th to 19th century "historians" were keen to pointing towards the Batavi, who had engaged in a rebellion against Roman oppression - and failing to notice that these Batavi
a) didn't succeed in rebelling; and
b) the only relation between said Batavi and the 17th century republic is an area called "Betuwe", which is apparently etymologically related to a Batavan origin (unless ofcourse that is made up as well).
I don't see why... Most post-colonial states are the result of said right (replacing foreign government with self-government, so to speak). Unfortunately most of the borders of these postcolonial states still to a large extent confirm to the colonial borders, giving rise to a multitude of conflicts, both between these postcolonial states as well as internally.
No, I do not want any examples.
I have argued before that human beings don't have the 'right' to anything. Rather, people have the 'responsibility' to treat other human beings in a certain way. This includes governments. But even if we accept your position that all human beings have certain inalienable rights, it does not follow that self-determination or self-government are among them. The reason for this is simple; where does the right of self-determination end?
Do you need 1,000,000 people? 500,000? 20,000? 2 guys, a girl, and a pizza place? What is the cut-off? Who organises, tallies and interprets the results of referendums within nation-state boundaries? Apply self-determination to areas like the Balkans and you end up with a ridiculous hodge-pledge of states and statelets, even worse than what exists there now. What if the Turkish minority in Germany decides that they don't want to be German anymore and create their own state? Or become part of Turkey? Is that okay?
Self-determination is a farce, and an irresponsible and unworkable one at that.
Post-colonial states exist because their imperial masters lost the ability or will to keep ahold of them and because they were able to successfully defend their independence and/ or territorial integrity from any dissenters. This is why Katanga isn't independent today, but Eritrea is. One had the capacity for self-determination, the other did not.JEELEN said:
Actually, that's what I said earlier. It's not the right to selfdetermination that counts, it's the might.
(That, by the way, renders your argument contra selfdetermination void: 2 guys and a pizzaplace lack the ability - might - to selfdetermination, ergo they don't have that right. That, howver, does not deny the principle. The United Nations are built upon certain inalienable human rights - which, equally obvious, does not deny the possibility to violate such rights. The fact that certain people can attain a right to selfdetermination is, however, to an extent, not linked at all to whether they should - which, it seems to me, is what you are arguing about. Obviously, such a right can be taken to extremes which, in practice, make it hazardous. Again, however, that does not deny the principle.)
Well, that's one way of looking at it - although I don't think most postcolonial states would agree with that interpretation. (For one, what business had the colonial powers being overseas in the first place?)
(That, by the way, renders your argument contra selfdetermination void: 2 guys and a pizzaplace lack the ability - might - to selfdetermination, ergo they don't have that right. That, howver, does not deny the principle. The United Nations are built upon certain inalienable human rights - which, equally obvious, does not deny the possibility to violate such rights. The fact that certain people can attain a right to selfdetermination is, however, to an extent, not linked at all to whether they should - which, it seems to me, is what you are arguing about. Obviously, such a right can be taken to extremes which, in practice, make it hazardous. Again, however, that does not deny the principle.)
Well, that's one way of looking at it - although I don't think most postcolonial states would agree with that interpretation. (For one, what business had the colonial powers being overseas in the first place?)
Their business in being overseas? Might.
Your argumentative style doesn't really make much sense Jeelen.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
In principle, I'd agree with you. It is basically hypocritical woo-woo bs.
The very problem is, that most people just don't think that way. It's a major flaw of mankind, but we are prone to think in terms of tribes in general. We are tribalistic creatures. You could say that self-determination and basing states solely on ethnic boundaries is crap - and this is totally true - it would anger quite a few people. It's politically impossible to not pay at least lip-service to the concept of self-determination, no matter nonsense it is.
It's not, actually. The Australian government has been denying the very concept in regards to Tibet for decades, and Only changed our tune on East Timor in 1999.
So, apart from the style, you're in agreement that your argument is void.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
No, I think what he said was: "maybe, but I'm not sure because I have no clue what you're actually saying."
This. But without the maybe. I firmly disagree with the principle of self-determination.
Josu
Emperor
So then, I do not understand why are we arguing about historical basis
"Historical basis" is what states use after having gained independence.
For instance, what "historical basis" would the Kurds have for attempting to achieve an independent state? None. But is that the reason they don't have an independent state? Hardly.
That would be a very lonesome position then, as I've tried to explain.
But let's take your position seriously: you believe you yourself have no right of self-determination? And, if so, why should that extend to the level of the state or the nation? The fact that you don't agree with the principle doesn't men it doesn't exist, or that it doesn't play a part in politics.
For instance, what "historical basis" would the Kurds have for attempting to achieve an independent state? None. But is that the reason they don't have an independent state? Hardly.
That would be a very lonesome position then, as I've tried to explain.
But let's take your position seriously: you believe you yourself have no right of self-determination? And, if so, why should that extend to the level of the state or the nation? The fact that you don't agree with the principle doesn't men it doesn't exist, or that it doesn't play a part in politics.
For instance, what "historical basis" would the Kurds have for attempting to achieve an independent state? None. But is that the reason they don't have an independent state? Hardly.
That's okay, I don't need other people. The sweet hum of the global positioning system is all the companionship I need.
You don't really understand international relations, do you? Individual sovereignty and state sovereignty are vastly different things, almost unrelated.
While few people these days would argue that the state can do whatever it likes to its citizens - Kim Jong-un and Dick Cheney might be exceptions - only anarchists would argue that the state does not have a monopoly on legitimate violence within its territory. In other words, you can't take away another person's sovereignty, whether it be by murder, rape, theft, etc., but the state can. State sovereignty supersedes individual sovereignty, therefore trumping the right of self-determination. Bam!
That's not just pulled out of my arse, by the way. That's a very bad paraphrase of Hedley Bull. Read his The Anarchic Society if you can. So far as I know, no one has disagreed with his analysis in forty years. That should tell you something about the quality of his argument.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
JK, our skype talks should remain private....if you know what I mean.
Anyways I do not support an Aboriginal state...I have no exact idea why, it just seems wrong. Also its an enclave and you know I hate enclaves...any type of enclave.
Anyways I do not support an Aboriginal state...I have no exact idea why, it just seems wrong. Also its an enclave and you know I hate enclaves...any type of enclave.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Every right ends where similar right of another person starts. Or in case if they are contradictory - then majority decides. This is why referendum or a plebiscite should be carried out and areas with majority voting for independent Catalonia should be allowed to split from Spain.
I have learned something different during Theory and Philosophy of Law lectures, but OK - you are entitled to your opinion as well.
Not to any greater extent than a state, for example, is. A state, a government - these are too just artificial, hypocritical woo-woo bs.
If you want to think like this, of course.
Not more a farce than National-unity or a state or any other political organization in itself.
Basically everything is a farce apart from physically touchable objects, right? If you want to think like this, of course.
If you don't think like majority of mankind then you are flawed - not mankind.
Because what is the standard? The standard is determined by majority. You are non-standard, out of line - not mankind.
What is the easiest solution to solve this "problem"? To change entire mankind? Or to change just you, who are out of line?
Yes - humans are gregarious animals, not reclusive animals. You have just stated the obvious. Everyone knows this.
It is not a flaw of mankind - if humans were reclusive animals, they would have never created anything like language, civilization or technology.
We would still be hunter-gatherers wandering around the savanna in Africa, each of us alone (apart from mating seasons).
So your individualistic approach to mankind is simply against the very human nature, because humans are tribalistic creatures...
And I see no reason to consider this as a major flaw of mankind. As I wrote - without tribalistic nature, we would not achieve anything. Without tribalistic nature the road of mankind from small family groups consisting of few people (in such groups for example Neanderthal people lived) to complex social and political organizations numbering millions and exercising power over some territory, would be impossible.
Self-determination has nothing to do with ethnic boundaries because there can be a community consisting of various ethnic group who still feel common interests and want to self-determinate themselves as one state, with many ethnic groups included within its political borders.
Self-determination of population of some territory can take place regardless of ethnicity, without paying attention for ethnic composition, but basing on other factors - people of some territory can share various kinds of common interests, views, ties of various kinds (not just ethnic ties), etc.
One example of such self-determination which was not based on ethnic factor, was self-determination attempt of the CSA - inhabitants of the CSA were of various ethnic groups, because they (and their ancestors) came to America from various European countries (just like in the North).
Turkish minority in Germany is so dispersed and divided that in no single place / area of Germany they are majority of population. Moreover - they emigrated to Germany for other reasons than to create their own state there. It was economic emigration - "in pursuit for bread". They do not form one political community. They do not share any political or economic interests so far. They do not have common goals to achieve, they are not well-organized so far.
And majority decides. You need majority of population of some territory to decide about political fate of this territory.
Opinion of majority is integral element of the right to self-determination. The right to self-determination does not allow minority to decide for others.
But similar thing to what you described still took place in real history - just replace Germany with Palestine and Turkish minority with Jewish minority.
However, in Palestine Jews - even though they were minority - had strong economic position before Israel was founded. They owned majority of all land, even though they were only 10% of inhabitants. Majority of Arabs (who now call themselves Palestinians) worked for their Jewish employers.
Who knows - maybe after 200 or 300 years from now, Turkish minority in Germany will be majority (at least in some part of Germany) or will have strong economic position and they will consider themselves as "oppressed" and thus will want to establish their own state in Germany. But this is far future.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
All boundaries of presently existing states are based on history. And that's perfectly fine as long as it ain't broken. Ethnic mosaics do not make state boundaries broken. States should focus on economic well being and security and not waste heads on nebulous and unmeasurable concepts like ethnicity. It's not that these parameters should not count, but that such should only pay a role in a symbolic way (like a ceremonial monarchy, coat of arms, flag, etc.). Make them count, and you get what happened in the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia. The ethnic Armenian seperatists of Nagarno-Karabakh went to war and committed ethnic cleansing in order to get Armenian-language education and television: That is the horror and utter absurdity of self-determination.
Ideally, state boundaries are based on what I would call bioregions, i.e. that are economically interdependent to due to common natural geographical features. A United Kingdom that does not have Northern Ireland would be a very close example of such. The European Union comes significantly closer to covering a bioregion than most of its member states. While bioregion-states are politically impossible for the time, I noticed that almost all mergers of Dutch local government were due to economic reasons, and that it wouldn't surprise me that such developments are happening elsewhere, nor that they would happen on higher levels of government. Indeed, most preferential free-trade agreements like the NAFTA and European Economic Area almost perfectly correspond to bioregions.
Similar threads
