homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » when is a state a state?

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: when is a state a state?
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel on another thread:
Nobody recognises 'Islamic State' as an Islamic state. There are states around that are predominantly Islamic but they don't recognise 'IS' as a state in any conventional sense -- indeed there are many Muslims fighting ISIS in an attempt to stop them establishing their version of what they think an 'Islamic State' should look like.

ISIL/IS/Daesh is a rebel warrior group, but it also a) has territory b) collects taxes c) provides some basic social services.

As we all know, it isn't recognised by the UN as being a state - but then there are quite a few governments which are not recognised.

It can't be just about disputed territory: Western Sahara is a big "country" which is usually ignored by the wider world and involved in a decades long conflict.

It can't just be about the brutality of the regime - we can all name various regimes of various types which have committed terrible things.

And it can't just be that IS has captured land from another state in a conflict. One example of a state building "defacto" on captured land is Israel. Despite various forms of international condemnation, Israel continues to treat much of the captured land as sovereign territory and almost everyone else considers it a legitimate state. (I'm not making a comment about Israel here, there are more-than-likely other examples I'm not aware of).

So why shouldn't IS be recognised as a state?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So why shouldn't IS be recognised as a state?

No particular reason at all, and to my mind it'd be easier to do so than not.

1. Those who went to Daesh to live could be stripped of their nationality, because they had a new one. Currently, it's against the UNCHR to leave a person stateless.

2. Declaring war on Daesh would mean that all Daesh assets could be impounded, degraded and destroyed, whichever side of a previous border it might be.

3. Those who supported Daesh outside of the area controlled by Daesh could be treated as spies/fifth columnists.

The idea that calling them a 'state' would somehow lend them unwarranted legitimacy is, I feel, missing the point.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Good question mr cheesy ...

Should the Kurdish Peshmerga and their supporters be considered/recognised as a state?

There are plenty of other examples ...

Recognising ISIS as a 'state' would presumably involve not recognising the existing states where they have seized or held territory.

It's a tricky one that, as ISIS's non-recognition of established borders was one of the reasons given for the RAF bombing across the border into Syria ...

The chances are, of course, that even if - for whatever reason - ISIS were recognised as an 'official' state by the international community (which ain't going to happen but suppose it did) then they aren't going to be satisfied with the territory they currently hold - they'd want to expand ... not only in terms of more territory but the extension of their warped ideology.

Israel is always going to be cited as a de-facto state which continues to get away with taking over tracts of other people's territory ...

Some right-wing and traditionalist Israelis would like to see Israel expand to occupy its 'ancient borders' or those apparently 'prophesied' for it in the OT ... which would impinge on the self-same areas that people are fighting over now.

I've even seen Mudfrog here argue that Israel should occupy a wider area than it currently does - and that everybody - the UN, the Arab states, the entire international community - ought to recognise that and grant them that desire - irrespective of the disruption, displacement and further conflict that would cause.

Why? Because it's in the Bible and it's God's will ...

[Paranoid]

So, yes, we soon get into tricky territory with all of this.

But, for all that, ISIS isn't a 'state' in any conventional sense - although it has some features of one in terms of infrastructure. Nor should it be.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For what we condemn IS, have our nations done any less?
The U.K. was a slower, sometimes more mutual process, but we've all displaced, forced conversion, murdered, tortured, stolen, etc.
The only significant difference is time.
Not arguing for IS, mind, just adding perspective.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For what we condemn IS, have our nations done any less?
The U.K. was a slower, sometimes more mutual process, but we've all displaced, forced conversion, murdered, tortured, stolen, etc.
The only significant difference is time.
Not arguing for IS, mind, just adding perspective.

No LilBuddha, yet again, we are not all guilty.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That is a different argument. What I am saying is that our states came to be by the methods we decry in IS. So nothing they are doing precludes their being a state.

[ 19. December 2015, 17:05: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In terms of our record on slavery, colonialism, the displacement and subjugation of indigeneous peoples and so on - then yes, there are parallels ...

But they're not exact equivalents. Although you could claim that the spread of global capitalism is akin to ISIS wishing to extend its concept of a jihadist caliphate ... or Communist countries back in the day wanting to export global revolution ...

It doesn't follow, of course, that because ISIS could potentially become a 'state' given time, that it IS a state.

The various states we're living in have been around a long, long time - even if they've emerged/re-emerged or only been 'realised' as a result of upheavals during the 20th century.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
States have recognised boundaries or claim boundaries within which they claim the right to govern. I think IS sees its boundary as 'the world'. Certainly eventually. Doesn't that make it kind of hard to recognise even if other states wanted to do so?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Someday, would they possibly fit the definition of a micronation (Wikipedia)? Or maybe a sovereign state (Wikipedia)?

And no, not all micronations are jokes.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Someday, would they possibly fit the definition of a micronation (Wikipedia)? Or maybe a sovereign state (Wikipedia)?

And no, not all micronations are jokes.

San Marino isn't a joke. Neither is the Vatican or Liechtenstein or Andorra.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Right. Although Wikipedia considers those "microstates".

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I recall a thread 5 or 6 years ago where the micronations and so forth were discussed. Some were simply a joke, such as the Principality of Hutt in WA. Others have more substance, such as a small area in the Andorras which somehow missed out in being assigned to either Spain or France when a larger territory was divided.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174

 - Posted      Profile for itsarumdo     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Berwick on Tweed

--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron

Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I recall a thread 5 or 6 years ago where the micronations and so forth were discussed. Some were simply a joke, such as the Principality of Hutt in WA. Others have more substance, such as a small area in the Andorras which somehow missed out in being assigned to either Spain or France when a larger territory was divided.

Is that the actual Andorra, which is a small independent state between France and Spain and accepted as such, or are you saying there is an extra bit that has somehow got left out of all three?


Berwick on Tweed is part of England and has been since the end of the C15. It changed hands several times before that, including being pledged by Henry VI and his entourage to try to buy Scottish support in the Wars of the Roses.

It has an entirely normal administration. The streets are cleaned. The bins are collected, just as they are in Alnwick in one direction or Eyemouth in the other.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I meant Pyrenees and got it wrong. No wonder the spell check did not recognise it.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Berwick on Tweed is part of England and has been since the end of the C15. It changed hands several times before that, including being pledged by Henry VI and his entourage to try to buy Scottish support in the Wars of the Roses.

I have heard that there was once a declaration of war made by "England, Scotland, and Berwick-on-Tweed". At the end of the war, the peace treaty mentioned England and Scotland, but not Berwick-on-Tweed. Several centuries later it was discovered that Berwick-on-Tweed was still at war.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Right. Although Wikipedia considers those "microstates".

My bad; I didn't realize the two terms were distinct.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Moo - the same story is told about Monmouthshire. In official documents Wales was often referred to as 'Wales and Monmouth' - because there was some dispute at one time as to whether Monmouthshire should be considered an English county rather than a Welsh one ... despite having plenty of Welsh place names and its own 'Gwentllian' form of Welsh ... *

So, on the declaration of War against Germany 'Wales and Monmouth' was cited, whereas on the cessation of hostilities, so the story goes, the documentation simply said, 'Wales'.

So Monmouthshire was technically still at war ...

I would imagine that both stories are urban (or rural) legends ...

* Shakespeare clearly regarded Monmouthshire as Welsh - as did most people during the Middle Ages ... and the 1536 'Act of Union' listed the county among the Marcher counties. In 1543 Monmouthshire wasn't mentioned in a subsequent Act because it wasn't part of a circuit pattern for legal court sessions.

A belief grew that this meant it wasn't part of Wales.

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/periods/tudors_05.shtml

Monmouthshire, like most border counties, has a fairly liminal feel ... it's my home county and I'm fascinated by how the Welsh accent merges and morphs into the West Country and Forest of Dean accents along the borders ... and how the Monmouthshire Levels mirror and echo the Somerset Levels across the Bristol Channel.

Ecclesiastically, it was part of the Diocese of Oxford at one time ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Haven't the Netherlands been at war with the Scilly Islands for 400 years already? Or something like that.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, it was 335 years. Careful! You may think there's a peace treaty but I'm out to get you.

[ 22. December 2015, 12:41: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, on the declaration of War against Germany 'Wales and Monmouth' was cited, whereas on the cessation of hostilities, so the story goes, the documentation simply said, 'Wales'.

So Monmouthshire was technically still at war ...

Either that or during the war it came to be seen as a full-fledged part of Wales, so that the documentation didn't need to mention it specifically, as it's covered under "Wales."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are several ways in which new states form. But, pertinant here is new states being formed by rebellion against another state (or, states). An example would be when a group of colonists along the eastern part of the the North American continent thought they'd be better off independent of the British crown, and after a period of armed rebellion secured territory. But, that state (or States) only really came into existance when Britain said "we've had enough, you can have your independence". Prior to that the area was still a British colony, some of which was occupied and controlled by rebels.

The parallel with Daesh is that they are rebels (in both Iraq and Syria) who hold and control some territory. That is still rebel controlled territory, not a state. If Iraq or Syria decide that enough is enough and enter peace negotiations and sign away that territory to Daesh then there will be a state. If (say) that happened in Iraq I suppose the territory held by Daesh in Syria could still be considered rebel held, or occupied by a foreign state.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd thought of that, Mousethief, but even if the story is true - I'm not aware of anything that would have happened during the War to cause Monmouthshire to be regarded as a fully-fledged part of Wales.

It was sometimes shown as part of England on maps - and there were arguments/discussions about it - but generally speaking Monmouthshire was seen as a Welsh county until some people got the wrong end of the stick from the 1543 'Act of Union' ...

The Welsh 'Acts of Union' are odd insofar as they weren't known as that at the time ... it was more a case of bringing Wales more in line with the rest of the country in terms of how things were arranged/governed ... and sorting out anomalies such as distinctions between the 'Marcher' counties along the border and the Principality itself ...

Indeed, the whole concept of Wales is sometimes seen as a problematic one any way ... 'When was Wales?' as the Welsh historian Gwyn Alf Williams famously put it ... [Biased]

Until the last of the native Welsh Princes, it was never a political unity but a hodge-podge of tiny territories ... the ancient Kingdom of Gwent - which effectively forms the foot-print for Monmouthshire - was no more than 15 miles wide ...

King Harold had a residence on the Welsh side of the Severn - at Portskewett - and made inroads into Welsh territory before the Norman conquest - even building a Norman style motte-and-bailey castle in one place, before the Normans arrived ...

The Normans gobbled up chunks by piece-meal - forming the Marcher lordships - but control of various parts of Wales fluctuated until it was more or less unified under the last native Welsh Princes - who were then conquered by Edward I.

Coming back to the declaration of war story, I suspect it's a legend. If 'Monmouthshire' was left off at all, it was probably an oversight or scribal error. The story may not even be true.

When I was a kid it was one of those stories doing the rounds - and whichever side of the story or whatever explanation you favoured showed your allegiance to either England or Wales ...

Realistically, wherever the actual official border runs, you could have divided the county in two with a line running north to south along the edge of the old coal-field.

To the west, where the Valleys started, it was more Welsh, to the east of that line - the 'middle of Monmouthshire' you had rolling English-style countryside, horses and hounds and so on ... rather like some kind of extension of Gloucestershire ...

I used to take visitors to a vantage point above Blaenafon where you can see both landscapes at once.

Whatever the truth or otherwise of the declaration of war story, I'm happy to go with Shakespeare's Glendower:

'Three times hath Henry Bolingbroke made head
Against my power; thrice from the banks of Wye
And sandy-bottom'd Severn have I sent him
Bootless home and weather-beaten back.'

Henry IV Act 3: scene 1.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Good question, but one for which ISTM there is no definitive answer.

I think it important in any discussion to make a distinction between de facto and de jure states. Respecting de facto there is the problem of defining what constitute the attributes of a state and to what extent they are fulfilled sufficiently for any particular case to be designated a state. The de jure aspect seems to involve recognition as a state or independent political entity by other similar bodies, as, for example, by the Pope in the medieval European world or by the United Nations at the present time.

I'm intrigued by the status of the European Union. Is it a state? Or is it similar to the United States in its early years when it was the convention to say "The United States are" rather than the "United States is"? Will there come a point where the European Union will insist on the integrity of its sovereignty and deny the right of a member to leave against its citizen's wishes?

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are several ways in which new states form. But, pertinant here is new states being formed by rebellion against another state (or, states). An example would be when a group of colonists along the eastern part of the the North American continent thought they'd be better off independent of the British crown, and after a period of armed rebellion secured territory. But, that state (or States) only really came into existance when Britain said "we've had enough, you can have your independence". Prior to that the area was still a British colony, some of which was occupied and controlled by rebels.

The parallel with Daesh is that they are rebels (in both Iraq and Syria) who hold and control some territory. That is still rebel controlled territory, not a state. If Iraq or Syria decide that enough is enough and enter peace negotiations and sign away that territory to Daesh then there will be a state. If (say) that happened in Iraq I suppose the territory held by Daesh in Syria could still be considered rebel held, or occupied by a foreign state.

Probably a better parallel is Rhodesia. UDI in 1965:

Rhodesia: "we're a state"
rest of world: "no you're not"
UK: "you're a rebel colony"
Rh: "but we are. we're independent under the Queen"
row: "no you're not."

1970...
Rh: "we're a state. and now we're a republic. We've got our own flag and anthem."
row: "no you're not"
UK: "you're a rebel colony"

1979...
Rh: "we're a state and we've got our own internal settlement. You must now call us Rhodesia-Zimbabwe."
rest of world: "no you're not"
UK: "you're a rebel colony"

1979, a bit later....
UK: "you're a rebel colony, we're reimposing direct rule, and here's Lord Soames as Governor to prove it."
Rh: "oh"

April 1980:
Zimbabwe: "we're a state."
rest of world: "yes you are"
UK: "yes you are"

Now, the reality is that between 1965 and 1979 Rhodesia was a de facto state, but the rest of the world didn't have to accept that. Really, you could argue that a state is only a state when everyone else says it is.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are nations, which aren' t states or countries. First Nations in Canada are these. Shared culture, language, history. They have territory, but they aren't countries or states. IS is something in between.

Israel, on the other hand, is both a nation an a country. Palestine is almost a nation, but Jordan appears to be the Palestinian state.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Probably a better parallel is Rhodesia.

...

Really, you could argue that a state is only a state when everyone else says it is.

There are lots of potential parallels, better in different ways. But, there is definitely a case that a state only exists in relation to other states. It probably doesn't have to be recognised by everyone else, but a significant proportion of other states and international bodies will need to recognise it in some way - to extend it credit terms commensurate with being a state, to accept currency they issue, to accept passports and official documentation, to open consulates and embassies etc.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There are nations, which aren' t states or countries.

We're talking about states, so I don't see the point in introducing nations which can be entirely different concepts - though it's possible that if people managed to separate nation from state we could be onto a major key to solving world problems. Take the UK as an example. The UK is a state, but comprised of 3 and bit nations - England, Wales, Scotland and part of Ireland. Ireland is a nation spread between two states. Imagine a world where Palestine is a nation spread across the states of Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon. Or where Kurdistan is a nation spread across the states of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Where no one considers it all odd to be a Kurd and a Turkish citizen without those being competing claims.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan, I think the world would be functioning a lot better if everybody involved had accepted years ago that Ireland is two nations and not one.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It might be useful to consider the state in terms of Weber's definition of a "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". The key words there are "successfully" and "legitimate". Legitimation is relative both to other states (as discussed previously) and to the people living within the state itself. To project this on to the earlier example of the American Revolution, it could be argued that the American state (or states, if you prefer that formulation) came in to existence in October 1781 (when British forces ceased to be able to conduct operations outside the garrison cities of New York, Charleston, and Savannah) rather than the official end of hostilities nearly two years later.

ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/whatever does not seem to qualify as a state under this formulation, both because their territory is often subject to violent incursions many regard as "legitimate" and because of the lack of legitimation by many living within their territory.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dooyeweerd says that the things states do, is set laws. If you're making a law, you're a state. If someone is subjecting you to a law, then they're the state you have to deal with at the moment - even if you regard them as occupiers of land which belongs to another state, and where you hope for liberation from the current occupiers to return you to the state to which you wish to be subject to / a subject of.

This seems a pretty useful and succinct definition to me.

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Second post

Years ago, I did a course that included quite a lot on recognition of countries. From recollection, different countries take a different approach to this. Historically, the UK has normally recognised states and regimes that appear to be functioning as such, irrespective of whether it likes them or not. Recognition is a matter of fact. Recognition ≠ approval. It doesn't even mean one will have diplomatic relations with them.

The US on the other hand, prefers to see the world as it would like it to be. So it has usually withheld recognition from states or regimes unless it approves of them. Perhaps recognition is seen as a reward for being the sort of state or regime it likes. Perhaps it has a sense that recognition denotes approval. So recognition of a state or regime it doesn't approve of, might be misinterpreted.

Perhaps this has something to do with the Puritan tradition, or perhaps it has something to do with Woodrow Wilson.

This is why for more than a generation, the US recognised Taiwan as the government of the whole of China, and did not recognise the actual government that everyone knew was running the real China.

This is also why everyone else has always recognised Cuba and why Canadians go on holiday there.

Even as I write this, I can mentally hear some shipmates muttering 'unprincipled casuists' and others muttering 'over-principled pomposity'.


Rhodesia was a special case. That might be why it tended to be referred to as an 'illegal regime' rather than using the terminology of recognition. The problem was that the Rhodesian regime was illegal within the terms of English law. If it had been somebody else's ex-colony, it would undoubtedly have met the criteria to have gone on being recognised, even if the UK might have disapproved of it.

Throughout the period when it was an illegal regime, it was possible to go there, without much difficulty and without suffering any particular repercussions for having done so. It was also possible to come from there to the UK and return .

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The US on the other hand, prefers to see the world as it would like it to be. So it has usually withheld recognition from states or regimes unless it approves of them. Perhaps recognition is seen as a reward for being the sort of state or regime it likes. Perhaps it has a sense that recognition denotes approval. So recognition of a state or regime it doesn't approve of, might be misinterpreted.

Perhaps this has something to do with the Puritan tradition, or perhaps it has something to do with Woodrow Wilson.

This is why for more than a generation, the US recognised Taiwan as the government of the whole of China, and did not recognise the actual government that everyone knew was running the real China.

I'd say the more likely explanation has to do with China's P-5 seat on the U.N. Security Council and the Cold War importance of the associated veto.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In terms of our record on slavery, colonialism, the displacement and subjugation of indigeneous peoples and so on - then yes, there are parallels ...

But they're not exact equivalents.

Not quite it felt much different to those on the receiving end.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Rhodesia was a special case.

Rhodesia might be slightly different, but hardly a "special" case. Ask Ireland and Wales and South Africa, hell, nearly 1\3 of the entire continent at one time.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Alan, I think the world would be functioning a lot better if everybody involved had accepted years ago that Ireland is two nations and not one.

WTF? They share the same language, history and culture. What separates them is state and, to an extent, religion.*


*Which is largely tied to state so not as much a separate issue as a variation on the first.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
They share the same language, history and culture.
Well, whilst that's undoubtedly true in some kind of day-to-day way, in a more aspirational / idealised / totemic (can I say that?) kind of sense there's no sharing going on in any of the three categories you set up - all three are areas of sharp difference and power struggle.

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Alan, I think the world would be functioning a lot better if everybody involved had accepted years ago that Ireland is two nations and not one.

WTF? They share the same language, history and culture. What separates them is state and, to an extent, religion.*


*Which is largely tied to state so not as much a separate issue as a variation on the first.

Ah, so is Ulster the Republic's Sudetenland, or is the Republic Ulster's Sudetenland?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:


quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Alan, I think the world would be functioning a lot better if everybody involved had accepted years ago that Ireland is two nations and not one.

WTF? They share the same language, history and culture. What separates them is state and, to an extent, religion.*


*Which is largely tied to state so not as much a separate issue as a variation on the first.

This is to totally misunderstand, sweep aside and ignore centuries of differences between Ulster Unionists and Irish Nationalists. They don't share a language, the don't share a history (unless you think being on opposite side of a war is a shared history), they don't share a culture.

About the only thing they do share is the geographical island of Ireland.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTF? They share the same language, history and culture. What separates them is state and, to an extent, religion.*


*Which is largely tied to state so not as much a separate issue as a variation on the first.

What separates them is that neither group identifies with the other, wants to be with the other, sees the other as 'one of us', or as anything else other than 'other'.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They share other things. It's perfectly proper for someone from Belfast and someone from Dublin to both call themselves Irish. The Irish national rugby team represents both parts of the island.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

About the only thing they do share is the geographical island of Ireland.

Rubbish. They share 9,000 years of history and development. It is English influence which began the differences there are today.
And that is my point. Our nations have been created and shaped by methods we now claim to decry.
Not that this makes them good or right, but they do not disqualify by default.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
They share other things. It's perfectly proper for someone from Belfast and someone from Dublin to both call themselves Irish. The Irish national rugby team represents both parts of the island.

Sport is very divided along class and social boundaries in Ireland. It is true that the Irish rugby union team represents both, but it is a minority sport in the south, where other indigenous sports have wide support.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Rubbish. They share 9,000 years of history and development. It is English influence which began the differences there are today.

The Irish Protestants are largely descended from Scottish immigrants which were brought in from the 17 century deliberately to control the Irish Catholics. So no, not at all "sharing 9000 years of history and development."

quote:
And that is my point. Our nations have been created and shaped by methods we now claim to decry.
Not that this makes them good or right, but they do not disqualify by default.

You're lumping together things that should not be lumped together. Irish Catholics and Ulster Protestants are very clearly different cultures.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The US on the other hand, prefers to see the world as it would like it to be. So it has usually withheld recognition from states or regimes unless it approves of them.

Really? I can think of many states that the US doesn't approve of, but none which it doesn't recognize on that account.

Wikipedia's List of states with limited recognition includes no UN-recognized states which the US does not also recognize.
quote:
This is why for more than a generation, the US recognised Taiwan as the government of the whole of China, and did not recognise the actual government that everyone knew was running the real China.
Plenty of countries recognized the Republic of China long after the Communists drove the KMT off the mainland. West Germany and Australia both did until 1972; the US change in 1979 was hardly "more than a generation" later.
quote:
This is also why everyone else has always recognised Cuba and why Canadians go on holiday there.

What makes you think the US doesn't recognize the Cuban government?
quote:
Even as I write this, I can mentally hear some shipmates muttering 'unprincipled casuists' and others muttering 'over-principled pomposity'.

Well, that's not what I'm muttering.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Right. Although Wikipedia considers those "microstates".

My bad; I didn't realize the two terms were distinct.
I didn't even know the term "microstates" until I read the Micronations article. I poked around elsewhere, and there are other terms like "pocket nation", "pico nation", etc.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Irish Protestants are largely descended from Scottish immigrants which were brought in from the 17 century deliberately to control the Irish Catholics. So no, not at all "sharing 9000 years of history and development."

You know where the Scots came from, right?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Irish Catholics and Ulster Protestants are very clearly different cultures.

No, the Irish and the Xhosa "are very clearly different cultures". Irish Catholics and Ulster Protestants are cultures whose differences are only apparent to someone with an intimate familiarity with both.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, the Irish and the Xhosa "are very clearly different cultures". Irish Catholics and Ulster Protestants are cultures whose differences are only apparent to someone with an intimate familiarity with both.

By that measure, are Irish Catholics and English Protestants clearly different cultures?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or very similar. Certainly much closer to each other than they are to Xhosa or Tibetans.
I don't think Crœsos point that difficult to understand or off the mark.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The point, however, is that while the ethnic differences between the Xhosa and Tibetans are considerable they are of no importance whatsoever, whereas the ethnic differences between the Irish Catholic and Protestant communities have been of great significance. The historic dynamic frequently rests on those marginal differences between the stories of proximate "imagined communities" (after Lindsay Anderson), rather than on remote communities that have virtually no interaction. There may be a common ancestor and a shared God, but the crucial point is whether the deity is worshipped on Mount Gezirim or in Jerusalem, as the Samaritan woman knew well.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools