What confers the rights to a national sovereignty?

[Shusha]

What confers the rights of a people to a national sovereignty?

I would like to use this thread to explore the legal or moral basis for sovereignty and the criteria people use when making claims to sovereignty or for denying sovereignty to a certain people. In particular, I am looking for internal consistency in people's arguments. In other words, a set of criteria which they would be able to apply universally to all cases.

 

[Hossfly]

What confers the rights of a people to a national sovereignty?

I would like to use this thread to explore the legal or moral basis for sovereignty and the criteria people use when making claims to sovereignty or for denying sovereignty to a certain people. In particular, I am looking for internal consistency in people's arguments. In other words, a set of criteria which they would be able to apply universally to all cases.

First of all, they must have land. In the case of the Palestinians they are a people without land.

 

[TheOldSchool]

What confers the rights of a people to a national sovereignty?

I would like to use this thread to explore the legal or moral basis for sovereignty and the criteria people use when making claims to sovereignty or for denying sovereignty to a certain people. In particular, I am looking for internal consistency in people's arguments. In other words, a set of criteria which they would be able to apply universally to all cases.

You take the land, and then you keep it, and you govern it yourself. Then you have sovereignty. It doesn't matter how you got the land. Just that you can defend it.

 

[montelatici]

At least, Oldschool is honest.

 

[Shusha]

Oldschool is consistent. Which is what I was asking for.

 

[montelatici]

What confers the rights of a people to a national sovereignty?

I would like to use this thread to explore the legal or moral basis for sovereignty and the criteria people use when making claims to sovereignty or for denying sovereignty to a certain people. In particular, I am looking for internal consistency in people's arguments. In other words, a set of criteria which they would be able to apply universally to all cases.

First of all, they must have land. In the case of the Palestinians they are a people without land.

The Christians and Muslims had the land, 95% of it.

 

[Hollie]

What confers the rights of a people to a national sovereignty?

I would like to use this thread to explore the legal or moral basis for sovereignty and the criteria people use when making claims to sovereignty or for denying sovereignty to a certain people. In particular, I am looking for internal consistency in people's arguments. In other words, a set of criteria which they would be able to apply universally to all cases.

First of all, they must have land. In the case of the Palestinians they are a people without land.

The Christians and Muslims had the land, 95% of it.

View attachment 57384

The Moslem colonists had stolen land, all of it.

 

[Shusha]

montelatici,

So your criteria for sovereignty over territory is land ownership by people of a religious group. So, by that criteria Muslims could claim self-determinative sovereignty over portions of France. Hindus can claim whole neighborhoods of Toronto and Vancouver. And the Jewish people could claim New York. Not to mention, of course, that this would make all the "settlements" under the sovereignty of Israel.

Also, consider that legally preventing the sale of property to a certain religious group would then create a legitimate sovereignty. Or forcibly removing property belonging to a religious group would also accomplish this. Do you believe that is morally acceptable and legally permissible?

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, et al,

National Sovereignty is pretty complex. But in the thumbnail view, sovereignty is understood as a government possessing full control over affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit.

What confers the rights of a people to a national sovereignty?

I would like to use this thread to explore the legal or moral basis for sovereignty and the criteria people use when making claims to sovereignty or for denying sovereignty to a certain people. In particular, I am looking for internal consistency in people's arguments. In other words, a set of criteria which they would be able to apply universally to all cases.

(COMMENT)

There are (in general) two theories to Sovereignty. In the modern world, contemporary 21st Century, they are:

• The Declarative:

The Declarative Theory more closely follows assertions made in the Montevideo Convention; that the announcement of statehood is sufficient and that statehood is independent of its recognition. Sovereignty, in the Montevideo Convention only requires a defined territory; it does not require exclusively controls to determine if it qualifies as a state.
​

• The Constitutive:

This deviates from the Article 3 description within the Montevideo Convention: Convention on Rights and Duties of States, wherein the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. In the Constitutive Theory, any states is only a state when it is recognized by other states; recognition dependent. Additionally, in the Constitutive Theory recognition is not automatic upon announcement; and the legal existence is based on that recognition.

​

In this case, the State of Palestine is a State by Declaration; using the The Declarative Theory. It is not a state under the Constitutive Theory, because the claim to the territory is greater than its span of exclusive control.

On the other hand, the State of Israel is a state under both theories. It is a state under the Declarative theory, because of it formal announcement; and it is a state under the Constitutive Theory because its span of exclusive control is greater than the claim. Further, Israel has the formal recognition, required.

(SALIENT POINTS of INTEREST)

Here is the primary difference between the two Theories in the practical sense:

∆ Israel has exclusive control of territory, but no permanent boundary that completely encompasses the territory.
∆ Israel has two Internationally recognized Peace Treaties which outline lines the internationally recognized boundaries.
∆ The two Peace Treaties encapsulate (without prejudice) the territories Palestine claims.
∆ Under the Declarative Theory, pursuant to Article 3 - Montevideo Convention, and under common law (Articles 2(4) and Article 51 of the UN Charter) Israel had the right to defend its integrity and independence, independent of recognition by the Arab League.
∆ Israel has successfully defended its territory for which it claimed exclusive control.

∆ Palestine has no exclusive control and no permanent boundary.
∆ Palestine only has exclusive control over Area "A" and the Gaza Strip (arguably).
​

There are 5 Modes or Means to the Acquisition of Sovereignty.

1 Cession
2 Subjugation
3 Operation of Nature
4 Prescription
5 Occupation
​

Israel concluded peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994, and aOslo Accords 1993 and 1995. The international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories. And Israel is not trying to claim the occupied territories. The "Occupation" is a purely defensive measure to prevent terrorist centers and insurgency camps from developing.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

What confers the rights of a people to a national sovereignty?

I would like to use this thread to explore the legal or moral basis for sovereignty and the criteria people use when making claims to sovereignty or for denying sovereignty to a certain people. In particular, I am looking for internal consistency in people's arguments. In other words, a set of criteria which they would be able to apply universally to all cases.

"A people" are the people of the place. They are the people with the right to sovereignty. They are referred to as the people, the natives, the indigenous, the inhabitants. Montevideo calls them the permanent population.

Exclusions would be foreigners who have no intention of joining or becoming a part of that national group like foreign students, tourists. and others.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha, et al,

National Sovereignty is pretty complex. But in the thumbnail view, sovereignty is understood as a government possessing full control over affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit.

What confers the rights of a people to a national sovereignty?

I would like to use this thread to explore the legal or moral basis for sovereignty and the criteria people use when making claims to sovereignty or for denying sovereignty to a certain people. In particular, I am looking for internal consistency in people's arguments. In other words, a set of criteria which they would be able to apply universally to all cases.

(COMMENT)

There are (in general) two theories to Sovereignty. In the modern world, contemporary 21st Century, they are:

• The Declarative:

The Declarative Theory more closely follows assertions made in the Montevideo Convention; that the announcement of statehood is sufficient and that statehood is independent of its recognition. Sovereignty, in the Montevideo Convention only requires a defined territory; it does not require exclusively controls to determine if it qualifies as a state.
​

• The Constitutive:

This deviates from the Article 3 description within the Montevideo Convention: Convention on Rights and Duties of States, wherein the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. In the Constitutive Theory, any states is only a state when it is recognized by other states; recognition dependent. Additionally, in the Constitutive Theory recognition is not automatic upon announcement; and the legal existence is based on that recognition.

​

In this case, the State of Palestine is a State by Declaration; using the The Declarative Theory. It is not a state under the Constitutive Theory, because the claim to the territory is greater than its span of exclusive control.

On the other hand, the State of Israel is a state under both theories. It is a state under the Declarative theory, because of it formal announcement; and it is a state under the Constitutive Theory because its span of exclusive control is greater than the claim. Further, Israel has the formal recognition, required.

(SALIENT POINTS of INTEREST)

Here is the primary difference between the two Theories in the practical sense:

∆ Israel has exclusive control of territory, but no permanent boundary that completely encompasses the territory.
∆ Israel has two Internationally recognized Peace Treaties which outline lines the internationally recognized boundaries.
∆ The two Peace Treaties encapsulate (without prejudice) the territories Palestine claims.
∆ Under the Declarative Theory, pursuant to Article 3 - Montevideo Convention, and under common law (Articles 2(4) and Article 51 of the UN Charter) Israel had the right to defend its integrity and independence, independent of recognition by the Arab League.
∆ Israel has successfully defended its territory for which it claimed exclusive control.

∆ Palestine has no exclusive control and no permanent boundary.
∆ Palestine only has exclusive control over Area "A" and the Gaza Strip (arguably).
​

There are 5 Modes or Means to the Acquisition of Sovereignty.

1 Cession
2 Subjugation
3 Operation of Nature
4 Prescription
5 Occupation
​

Israel concluded peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994, and aOslo Accords 1993 and 1995. The international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories. And Israel is not trying to claim the occupied territories. The "Occupation" is a purely defensive measure to prevent terrorist centers and insurgency camps from developing.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Israel does not fit any of those five modes of sovereignty.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This goes back to the concept of what national sovereignty is. Do you know it when you see it.

National Sovereignty is pretty complex. But in the thumbnail view, sovereignty is understood as a government possessing full control over affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit.

What confers the rights of a people to a national sovereignty?

I would like to use this thread to explore the legal or moral basis for sovereignty and the criteria people use when making claims to sovereignty or for denying sovereignty to a certain people. In particular, I am looking for internal consistency in people's arguments. In other words, a set of criteria which they would be able to apply universally to all cases.

Israel does not fit any of those five modes of sovereignty.

International Law: Recognition, De-facto and De-jure recognition
(CONTEXT)

"No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel,
No negotiations with Israel!
The Khartoum Resolution
League of Arab States, Khartoum Resolution, 1 September 1967​

This is the general framework that was adopted by the Arab League in response to the success of Israeli Defense Forces since the defense measures of take in the Six-Day War; fought between 5 June 1967 and 10 June 1967. It was built on a foundation set in the 1948-1949 War of Independence against Arab League and Arab-Palestinian interference of Jewish self-determination. And withstood the onslaught of the Yom Kipper War of 1973. In these successive military tests for sovereignty, the cascade effect was that the State of Israel to assumed control of additional Arab-Palestinian territory that fell under Israeli control in the wake and vacuum of withdrawing Arab forces; each time the Arab-League attempted to interfere or use force to reverse Israeli control, advances and sovereignty.

Under normal circumstances and conditions, sovereignty over territory would be recognized by the mere fact that one --- and only --- one nation exercises exclusive control. That would amount to physical evidence of the acquisition of the territory. The Arab-Palestinians, as a result of their failure to forcibly defy the ascension of Israeli independence, --- AND --- to deny the existence of Israel as a sovereignty state; are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the development of a political entity which has entered into treaty arrangements ---- indicates the level of rational behavior exhibited by the Arab-Palestinian. That which objectively persists independent of Arab-Palestinian presence is real.

(COMMENT)

The existence of Israel --- and the fact that such existence does not perfectly fit one of the five (5) Modes of Acquisition of Sovereignty, does not (in any meaningful way) alter the reality. Israel exists independent of Arab-Palestinian contemplation or objective evaluation. Israel is not an aberration; it has both form and political impact. (Just as a person cannot un-see something so it is that --- recognition once given cannot be withdrawn.) Israel has influence in trade and commerce; as well as the positive contributions it has made to humanity and scientific exploration. AND IF Israel is real, then it must be the case that some means of Acquisition explains its attainment of Sovereignty (exclusive territorial control).

The de jure acceptance of provisional (temporary or conditional) recognition has been given to the State of Palestine.​

(ANSWER)

Based on this logic, any passing of sovereignty (to Israel) over any portion of the territory (formally under the Mandate) on the basis of the conduct (peace initiatives or hostile conflict) --- by either the Israelis or Arab-Palestinians, must be manifested in a clear sign of unambiguous evidence, and without any doubt by outside observers that Israelis conduct supports the relevant facts leading to sovereignty.

It is my opinion that the definition of the "5 Modes of Acquisition" written in stone, but can be modified based on the current events. It may introduce more alternatives, or incorporate further descriptions. In the case of the Middle East, and Israel, it appears to be a combination of multiple means: (Annexation + Adjudication)

(2) Annexation: Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
​

In the concept of "Annexation," the “acquisition of title to territorial sovereignty” (expanded view) includes:

(viii) Adjudication:
Adjudication is also mode of acquiring territory. it occurs where a conference of the victorious powers at the end of a war assigns territory to a particular state for the sake of settlement of peace.
​

Just My Thought,
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The Europeans in South Africa and Rhodesia had full sovereignty over South Africa and Rhodesia. Now they don't. Funny that.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

WOW, I see you are really into making some sort of connection the Arab-Palestinians and the troubled states in Africa.

The Europeans in South Africa and Rhodesia had full sovereignty over South Africa and Rhodesia. Now they don't. Funny that.

(COMMENT)

Zimbabwe, recognized as independent from the UK since 1980, and has drop in there standard of living 150% in the last decade.

You are trying to compare it to what?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

WOW, I see you are really into making some sort of connection the Arab-Palestinians and the troubled states in Africa.

The Europeans in South Africa and Rhodesia had full sovereignty over South Africa and Rhodesia. Now they don't. Funny that.

(COMMENT)

Zimbabwe, recognized as independent from the UK since 1980, and has drop in there standard of living 150% in the last decade.

You are trying to compare it to what?

Most Respectfully,
R

Were we discussing sovereignty or standard of living? What's your point?

Rhodesia declared independence in 1965, by the way.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, it depends on your perspective.

montelatici, et al,

WOW, I see you are really into making some sort of connection the Arab-Palestinians and the troubled states in Africa.

The Europeans in South Africa and Rhodesia had full sovereignty over South Africa and Rhodesia. Now they don't. Funny that.

(COMMENT)

Zimbabwe, recognized as independent from the UK since 1980, and has drop in there standard of living 150% in the last decade.

You are trying to compare it to what?

Most Respectfully,
R

Were we discussing sovereignty or standard of living? What's your point?

Rhodesia declared independence in 1965, by the way.

(COMMENT)

The declaration and the recognition are two different dates.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This goes back to the concept of what national sovereignty is. Do you know it when you see it.

National Sovereignty is pretty complex. But in the thumbnail view, sovereignty is understood as a government possessing full control over affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit.

What confers the rights of a people to a national sovereignty?

I would like to use this thread to explore the legal or moral basis for sovereignty and the criteria people use when making claims to sovereignty or for denying sovereignty to a certain people. In particular, I am looking for internal consistency in people's arguments. In other words, a set of criteria which they would be able to apply universally to all cases.

Israel does not fit any of those five modes of sovereignty.

International Law: Recognition, De-facto and De-jure recognition
(CONTEXT)

"No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel,
No negotiations with Israel!
The Khartoum Resolution
League of Arab States, Khartoum Resolution, 1 September 1967​

This is the general framework that was adopted by the Arab League in response to the success of Israeli Defense Forces since the defense measures of take in the Six-Day War; fought between 5 June 1967 and 10 June 1967. It was built on a foundation set in the 1948-1949 War of Independence against Arab League and Arab-Palestinian interference of Jewish self-determination. And withstood the onslaught of the Yom Kipper War of 1973. In these successive military tests for sovereignty, the cascade effect was that the State of Israel to assumed control of additional Arab-Palestinian territory that fell under Israeli control in the wake and vacuum of withdrawing Arab forces; each time the Arab-League attempted to interfere or use force to reverse Israeli control, advances and sovereignty.

Under normal circumstances and conditions, sovereignty over territory would be recognized by the mere fact that one --- and only --- one nation exercises exclusive control. That would amount to physical evidence of the acquisition of the territory. The Arab-Palestinians, as a result of their failure to forcibly defy the ascension of Israeli independence, --- AND --- to deny the existence of Israel as a sovereignty state; are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the development of a political entity which has entered into treaty arrangements ---- indicates the level of rational behavior exhibited by the Arab-Palestinian. That which objectively persists independent of Arab-Palestinian presence is real.

(COMMENT)

The existence of Israel --- and the fact that such existence does not perfectly fit one of the five (5) Modes of Acquisition of Sovereignty, does not (in any meaningful way) alter the reality. Israel exists independent of Arab-Palestinian contemplation or objective evaluation. Israel is not an aberration; it has both form and political impact. (Just as a person cannot un-see something so it is that --- recognition once given cannot be withdrawn.) Israel has influence in trade and commerce; as well as the positive contributions it has made to humanity and scientific exploration. AND IF Israel is real, then it must be the case that some means of Acquisition explains its attainment of Sovereignty (exclusive territorial control).

The de jure acceptance of provisional (temporary or conditional) recognition has been given to the State of Palestine.​

(ANSWER)

Based on this logic, any passing of sovereignty (to Israel) over any portion of the territory (formally under the Mandate) on the basis of the conduct (peace initiatives or hostile conflict) --- by either the Israelis or Arab-Palestinians, must be manifested in a clear sign of unambiguous evidence, and without any doubt by outside observers that Israelis conduct supports the relevant facts leading to sovereignty.

It is my opinion that the definition of the "5 Modes of Acquisition" written in stone, but can be modified based on the current events. It may introduce more alternatives, or incorporate further descriptions. In the case of the Middle East, and Israel, it appears to be a combination of multiple means: (Annexation + Adjudication)

(2) Annexation: Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
​

In the concept of "Annexation," the “acquisition of title to territorial sovereignty” (expanded view) includes:

(viii) Adjudication:
Adjudication is also mode of acquiring territory. it occurs where a conference of the victorious powers at the end of a war assigns territory to a particular state for the sake of settlement of peace.
​

Just My Thought,
Most Respectfully,
R

You're still batting zero.

Why don't you just post something specific instead of blowing a lot of smoke?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Are you saying that the answer, which does give very identifiable specifics, is to difficult for you to understand?

If it were simple answers, then everyone would have them.

You're still batting zero.

Why don't you just post something specific instead of blowing a lot of smoke?

(COMMENT)

If you know the answer, in a simpler form, just say so.

But, in most cases, the pro-Palestinian movements, attempt to lay claim to something that was not theirs to begin with, and attempts to blame everyone (but themselves) for their failure to achieve sovereignty.

Palestinians use a childlike scenario that goes: "calling dibs."

Calling "dibs" is the American English term, also known as "bags" or "bagsy" in England and Ireland, for an informal convention where one declares a first claim to something to which no one else has a clearly recognized right. Many kids use dibs to claim something.​

The world really doesn't work that way. Like most things worth having, some effort must be put into it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Votto]

montelatici,

So your criteria for sovereignty over territory is land ownership by people of a religious group. So, by that criteria Muslims could claim self-determinative sovereignty over portions of France. Hindus can claim whole neighborhoods of Toronto and Vancouver. And the Jewish people could claim New York. Not to mention, of course, that this would make all the "settlements" under the sovereignty of Israel.

Also, consider that legally preventing the sale of property to a certain religious group would then create a legitimate sovereignty. Or forcibly removing property belonging to a religious group would also accomplish this. Do you believe that is morally acceptable and legally permissible?

Does a chosen religion negate sovereignty?

If so, why? Are you a religion bigot?

The Jews received their land from the UN, and then fought for it. They also can trace their ancient roots to the land.

What other criteria would you like?

Considering the historic religious persecution throughout the world in history and present, if I were a Jew I would fight for it to the death.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Are you saying that the answer, which does give very identifiable specifics, is to difficult for you to understand?

If it were simple answers, then everyone would have them.

You're still batting zero.

Why don't you just post something specific instead of blowing a lot of smoke?

(COMMENT)

If you know the answer, in a simpler form, just say so.

But, in most cases, the pro-Palestinian movements, attempt to lay claim to something that was not theirs to begin with, and attempts to blame everyone (but themselves) for their failure to achieve sovereignty.

Palestinians use a childlike scenario that goes: "calling dibs."

Calling "dibs" is the American English term, also known as "bags" or "bagsy" in England and Ireland, for an informal convention where one declares a first claim to something to which no one else has a clearly recognized right. Many kids use dibs to claim something.​

The world really doesn't work that way. Like most things worth having, some effort must be put into it.

Most Respectfully,
R

You throw out a lot of stuff but nothing fits.

Specifically how did Israel acquire the land it sits on?