Right?! I LIKE asking really interesting questions. I like to pat myself on the back and pretend I'm actually good at asking interesting questions.
I'd argue that it is a basic requirement to "agree to live at peace with your neighbors" and to "recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all other States" in order to be accepted into the UN, so all of them, right? It is in the document.
Like which States have been recognized by the UN while declaring, "[Japan] has to be dismantled! We will fight until [Japan] no longer exists!"
The fundamental recognition of other State's sovereignty IS a prerequisite to be admitted into the international community. Isn't it?
Is it?
This is from Wikipedia (I know…Wikipedia…) but it poses interesting points to consider:
“
There are two traditional theories used to indicate how a sovereign state comes into being. The declarative theory (codified in the 1933 Montevideo Convention) defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria:
- a defined territory
- a permanent population
- a government, and
- a capacity to enter into relations with other states.
According to the declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. By contrast, the constitutive theory defines a state as a person of international law only if it is recognised as such by other states that are already a member of the international community.[1][2]”
So either you become a state through territorial control, essentially or recognition of those states already recognized. Sort of an “old boys” club, but a rather murky one
with multiple levels of recognition.
Numerous states exist with contested territories, so mutual recognition dependent on complete peace is a not consistent requirement for statehood. I think in the case of Palestine, it is being wielded by Israel to postpone and ultimately prevent the possibility of a state until “facts in the ground” make it impossible to realize. There have been multiple instances where Israel’s right to exist has been recognized. In 1988, the PLO accepted Israel’s right to exist. Again, in 1993, Yasser Arafat stated in a letter that the PLO recognizes Israel’s right to exist in “peace and security”.
Having said all that, I don't at ALL disagree with your point that signing and ratifying specific conventions and treaties should be entirely voluntary as that is a fundamental condition of sovereignty (having agency over the contracts you agree to abide by).
But all that leaves us in a bit of a bind, yes?
Sure. I see what you mean. Self-determination in the form of statehood shouldn't depend on any "other" granting you that self-determination in the form of statehood. Hence the "self" in self-determination. Heard and understood. Also, statehood has no value outside the collective. The point of statehood, as you've indicated elsewhere, is the privileges of statehood. Of being able to interact with other states with equal(ish) footing.
Agree. Very well put, better than I could.
The proper question is HOW terrorist violence works to achieve the aim of statehood?
Very specifically, looking at Gaza, we have:
- significant importation of weapons for offensive tactics
- indiscriminate rocket attacks
- extensive building of military infrastructure for offensive tactics
- suicide bombings
- march of "return" aggravating the demarcation line
- massive infiltration/invasion to commit atrocities (possibly with genocidal intent)
Which of these actions, do you think, bring Gaza closer to statehood?
Gaza seperate from the West Bank then? That is more complicated because partitioning Gaza from the West Bank has done two things:
What exactly do you mean by “March of Return”?
To address your question (as I understand it), does terrorism work in the emergence of state? Unfortunately, the answer is “yes” depending on the relative power of those involved in the conflict and of their alliences.
The reality of terrorism is that if it is state sponsored it is called war, but if it is via non-state actors such as nationalist or separatist movements it is terrorism or guerilla warfare (not sure if there is much distinction). Horrific terrorism resulted in the partition of India and creation of Pakistan didn’t it?
There are numerous examples historically and currently of new states forming or acquiring territory through terrorist tactics (Russia and Ukraine).
So it DOES work in some cases, even though it is ethically wrong. How it works (in my opinion) depends on the power of a state to address it, the ability of a group to control a population or the degree to which the population supports a movement.
Relating to Gaza, it is clearly not working. But, looking at the West Bank Palestinian population in recent years, where the governing authority continues to maintain active security agreements with the Israeli government, where terrorism is at a much lower level … where has that gotten them?
In my opinion, a government which aspires to statehood should be held to the standard that states are held to. Else, they are not ready for statehood.
I don’t think I agree here, because they may typically lack the powers of statehood, their movement may be being suppressed by the state that controls the territory and opposes it, etc. and that state may hold a lot of power within the local or international community that could prevent the formation of a state…where does that leave them? States can form out of separatist movements but they can also form out irreconcilable conflict and violence (examples that come to mind are North and South Sudan, Serbia/Bosnia). In none of those cases did they have to achieve that standard first, but they should be HELD to that standard once they have a state.
