Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Customary law means the law has been applied regularly but I can't think of when such a law has had any effect, can you?That sounds good, but in fact, the way sovereignty is usually transferred is by military force and the passage of time.
I disagree most strongly. Modern customary law no longer accepts external military force or conquest as legitimate means of transferring territory from one State to another. Sovereignty rests with treaties and mutual agreements, often as a result of recognition of self-determination of a specific peoples by the involved parties and the international communities.
In other words, the right to sovereignty means nothing unless you are strong enough to defend it.Btw, please do not read this as me dismissing the RIGHTS of Arab Palestinians to take up sovereignty. I am firmly in agreement that they have that right, in principle. But it requires actual acts of creating sovereignty. The right to sovereignty and the practical fact of having sovereignty are two very different things.
Customary law means the law has been applied regularly but I can't think of when such a law has had any effect, can you?That sounds good, but in fact, the way sovereignty is usually transferred is by military force and the passage of time.
I disagree most strongly. Modern customary law no longer accepts external military force or conquest as legitimate means of transferring territory from one State to another. Sovereignty rests with treaties and mutual agreements, often as a result of recognition of self-determination of a specific peoples by the involved parties and the international communities.
In other words, the right to sovereignty means nothing unless you are strong enough to defend it.Btw, please do not read this as me dismissing the RIGHTS of Arab Palestinians to take up sovereignty. I am firmly in agreement that they have that right, in principle. But it requires actual acts of creating sovereignty. The right to sovereignty and the practical fact of having sovereignty are two very different things.
Since when does law have to be internationally accepted to be effective? If a law cannot compel states to comply with it, it is nothing but a curiosity. Tibet, Inner Mongolia, parts of Georgia and parts of Ukraine are example in which the law had no effect. International law is mostly effective in matters involving commerce because in these cases the effects of the law are mutually beneficial, but in other areas, international law is mostly aspirational rather than real.Customary law means the law has been applied regularly but I can't think of when such a law has had any effect, can you?That sounds good, but in fact, the way sovereignty is usually transferred is by military force and the passage of time.
I disagree most strongly. Modern customary law no longer accepts external military force or conquest as legitimate means of transferring territory from one State to another. Sovereignty rests with treaties and mutual agreements, often as a result of recognition of self-determination of a specific peoples by the involved parties and the international communities.
I can't think of any where it hasn't applied. Peace treaties and boundary agreements are the defining factor of modern nations. Can you give me an example of where it hasn't applied? Where there is no treaty agreement, but internationally accepted that territory changed sovereignty through conquest? Especially post 1948 ish?
I mean, I try to be well-read on the subject, but feel free to prove me wrong.
I won't quarrel with your beliefs, but in the real world, you only have the rights you can defend. Ask any Ukrainian.In other words, the right to sovereignty means nothing unless you are strong enough to defend it.Btw, please do not read this as me dismissing the RIGHTS of Arab Palestinians to take up sovereignty. I am firmly in agreement that they have that right, in principle. But it requires actual acts of creating sovereignty. The right to sovereignty and the practical fact of having sovereignty are two very different things.
Nope, actually rather the opposite if what I meant. I believe in the principle of self-determination. And the rights of any peoples who want it to have it. I also believe in the principle of non-violence. The test to see whether you are actually a state or not has nothing to do with military power.
I won't quarrel with your beliefs, but in the real world, you only have the rights you can defend. Ask any Ukrainian.
As individuals they do, but I think the time has passed when they might have achieved some measure of sovereignty over some part of Judea and Samaria.I won't quarrel with your beliefs, but in the real world, you only have the rights you can defend. Ask any Ukrainian.
My meaning was that sovereignty depends on your ability to put it into place or take it up. That does not necessarily depend on military might or the need to defend territory with military might. It can, but it doesn't have to. Certainly, Palestine and Palestinians have the opportunity to achieve many things through non-military means, should they choose to.
As individuals they do, but I think the time has passed when they might have achieved some measure of sovereignty over some part of Judea and Samaria.I won't quarrel with your beliefs, but in the real world, you only have the rights you can defend. Ask any Ukrainian.
My meaning was that sovereignty depends on your ability to put it into place or take it up. That does not necessarily depend on military might or the need to defend territory with military might. It can, but it doesn't have to. Certainly, Palestine and Palestinians have the opportunity to achieve many things through non-military means, should they choose to.
(COMMENT)Good post. It would be great if the UN would live up to its stated ideals.
(COMMENT)Indeed, think Palestine 1948.(COMMENT)Indeed, what are those requirements?She (long ago) met the requirements for being a state and has been recognized as a state in the international community.
Recognition is not a requirement for the establishment of a state.
.........View attachment 278573
Most Respectfully,
R
BTW, Palestine was recognized by several other states.
I have never said that Jews have no rights. Rights like sovereignty and self determination are "national" rights. These are territorial rights. The French have those rights in France but they cannot claim those same rights in Britain. If someone from France moves to Britain and becomes a citizen then he will have those rights in Britain. However, those rights would not be exclusive or superior to those already living there.Well, the interesting thing, Tinmore, is that you and I agree on a lot. And, in fact, if you would only lose the ridiculous notion that somehow rights don't apply to the Jewish people, we could get on with actual solutions to the conflict.
However, those rights would not be exclusive or superior to those already living there.
That is true. However, the Treaty of Lausanne was a part of a process. The plan was to create new states in that region. Each new state was named and post war treaties defined their international borders. The people who normally lived in each territory would become citizens/nationals of their respective territories. That plan could not be implemented as long as those territories fell under Turkish sovereignty.In order for sovereignty to transfer from one state to another two things have to happen, the existing sovereign has to part with their sovereignty and another sovereign has to take up sovereignty. (While an existing sovereign can unilaterally abandon territory, this does not create a new sovereign, it creates the condition of terra nullius)
Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne takes care of the first part of our transfer. No matter how much you wish it so, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, it does NOT take care of both parts.
That is true. However, the Treaty of Lausanne was a part of a process. The plan was to create new states in that region. Each new state was named and post war treaties defined their international borders. The people who normally lived in each territory would become citizens/nationals of their respective territories. That plan could not be implemented as long as those territories fell under Turkish sovereignty.In order for sovereignty to transfer from one state to another two things have to happen, the existing sovereign has to part with their sovereignty and another sovereign has to take up sovereignty. (While an existing sovereign can unilaterally abandon territory, this does not create a new sovereign, it creates the condition of terra nullius)
Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne takes care of the first part of our transfer. No matter how much you wish it so, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, it does NOT take care of both parts.
The Treaty of Lausanne merely released those territories so that the plan could be implemented. All of those new states came into existence with the Treaty of Lausanne.
). That just wasn’t stated in the documents because they, you know, forgot to mention that minor detail.
Rights like sovereignty and self determination are "national" rights. These are territorial rights.
