NationStates Jolt Archive

So, theries of Statehood. Which one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutive_theory_of_statehood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_theory_of_statehood

Declarative.

If I possess military force or economic power insufficient to simply assert whatever I want anyway, I will go for Declarative, because that theory supports my ability to declare statehood regardless of the assertions of other more powerful states.

If I possess military force or economic power sufficient to simply assert whatever I want anyway, I will go for Constitutive, because I will want to limit the number of other states with power, and I can do so by using my own power to influence world opinion ("you don't really think they should be a state, do you?" **sound of rifle round chambering** and/or **sound of economic sanctions**)

Welcome to the Realist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_%28international_relations%29) School of Hard Knocks.

Constitutive, certainly. The alternative leads to too many stupid complications.

The first of which, as I discussed in the prior thread, is that I could declare my apartment a nation, independant and sovereign. And under such a theory, that would be valid.

The other is basically how declarative theory is fundamentally oppositional to the very idea of international law. International law basically states that nations are governed and protected by the international legal regime.

So let us say I declare my apartment a legal nation. Under the declarative theory, I am a nation. And as a nation, and governed and protected by international law.

Now lets say as leader of my nation I declare that anyone wishing to become a citizen of my nation, must take a citizenship test.

Those tests involve the brutal gang rape and torturous murder of a 5 year old girl.

A bunch of people come over to my nation and wish to become citizens, we perform the legal citizenship test. At which point, agents of the united states government invade my nation and take me prisoner, violating not only the rules of war, but national sovereignty as well.

I attempt, as leader of my nation (which according to declarative theory my apartment is a nation) to bring a claim against the United States for violating international law. My claim is rejected, because the international court of law does not recognize my apartment as a nation, nor me as a leader.

Conversly, the united states tries to charge me as a national sovereign, for violating human rights in violation of international law. Their claim is rejected because the international court of law does not recognize my apartment as a nation, nor me as a leader.

Under international law, nations are both bound by and protected by international law, and under declarative theory, recognition is not required to be a nation.

Ergo a nation is bound by and protected by international law, even if nobody recognizes it as a nation. But to be bound by and protected by international law, it is required that my nation be recognized. The theory leads inveitably into a paradox

Under international law, nations are both bound by and protected by international law, and under declarative theory, recognition is not required to be a nation.

Ergo a nation is bound by and protected by international law, even if nobody recognizes it as a nation. But to be bound by and protected by international law, it is required that my nation be recognized. The theory leads inveitably into a paradox
Or it would if international law had any real meaning. As it is, it is simply a way for strong and/or victorious nations to justify their hegemony to one another.

Statehood is Declarative as long as the people declaring have the military might to back it up.

Statehood is Declarative as long as the people declaring have the military might to back it up.

and the military would be a means of forcing recognition, would it not? And once you add the element of recognition in any form as necessary, then the theory dies.

and the military would be a means of forcing recognition, would it not? And once you add the element of recognition in any form as necessary, then the theory dies.

And what if a nation has independence, a secure borders, did not fight a war to gain it, declares statehood, and no one recognizes it?

and the military would be a means of forcing recognition, would it not? And once you add the element of recognition in any form as necessary, then the theory dies.
Constitutive isn't accurate, either. Israel, for instance, is unrecognized by most of their neighbors, but they're a state in spite of this because they possess the firepower to keep said neighbors at bay. Recognition isn't required for statehood, only physical force is.

Constitutive isn't accurate, either. Israel, for instance, is unrecognized by most of their neighbors, but they're a state in spite of this because they possess the firepower to keep said neighbors at bay. Recognition isn't required for statehood, only physical force is.

And why Taiwan is not a nation even though a couple dozen nations recognize them as one. Israel is not in that category as it is recognized by several nations and has a seat in the UN.

And what if a nation has independence, a secure borders, did not fight a war to gain it, declares statehood, and no one recognizes it?

depends. Does anyone else lay claim to that land?

depends. Does anyone else lay claim to that land?

Do not read into it. Answer the question. I gave you all the information.

Constitutive ftw.

Or it would if international law had any real meaning. As it is, it is simply a way for strong and/or victorious nations to justify their hegemony to one another.

Statehood is Declarative as long as the people declaring have the military might to back it up.

Then again, I also like this.

And why Taiwan is not a nation even though a couple dozen nations recognize them as one.

So a nation, even if recognized by a nation, isn't a nation, if it can't defend itself by force?

So grenada, Lichtenstein, Vatican City, Monaco, the Marshall Islands, and every other country out there without a military...aren't real nations?

That's absurd.

If Taiwan is recognized as a nation, even if it doesn't have military force, what makes it different than say.....Monaco?

And what if a nation has independence, a secure borders, did not fight a war to gain it, declares statehood, and no one recognizes it?Then you have Israel for the first couple of decades of its existence?

So a nation, even if recognized by a nation, isn't a nation, if it can't defend itself by force?

So grenada, Lichtenstein, Vatican City, Monaco, the Marshall Islands, and every other country out there without a military...aren't real nations?

That's absurd.

If Taiwan is recognized as a nation, even if it doesn't have military force, what makes it different than say.....Monaco?

Monaco also has the backing of France. The Vatican City is defended by the Swiss Guards as well as the Italians and probably most of the Western World if it ever got threatened. The Marshall Islands is defended by the United States, and as to other countries...Most of them are defended by other nations.

As t Taiwan, they have a military force but they fear what China will do if they ever formally declare independence from them even though both Japan and the United States are obligated by treaty to defend the island in the event of a Chinese attack.

Do not read into it. Answer the question. I gave you all the information.

No, you did not. It matters considerably whether there is a dispute. If a nation governs a piece of land and NO OTHER nation in the world attempts to lay claim to that land, or govern that land, or state that this land is, in fact, theirs, then that nation can be said to be recognized as the legitimate sovereign of that territory through the failure of anyone else to claim it for themselves.

If a government says "this land is ours!" and nobody says otherwise, that is an implicit recognition that this land is theirs. If they claim land, and nobody disputes it, that's implicit recognition of that nation's sovereignty.

If however that nation goes "this land is ours!" and another country goes "no, no it isn't!" that's an entirely different situation.

So answer the question, is that land in dispute or not?

Then you have Israel for the first couple of decades of its existence?

They fought a war to gain their independence and they were also recognized as well.

Monaco also has the backing of France. The Vatican City is defended by the Swiss Guards as well as the Italians and probably most of the Western World if it ever got threatened. The Marshall Islands is defended by the United States, and as to other countries...Most of them are defended by other nations.

As t Taiwan, they have a military force but they fear what China will do if they ever formally declare independence from them even though both Japan and the United States are obligated by treaty to defend the island in the event of a Chinese attack.

so you just said that Monaco is a nation because it has the backing of france, and that Taiwan has the obligated backing of the United States.

Gee, that's funny. So taiwan does have ability to defend itself to at least the same capacity of Monaco then.

So...is monaco a nation or not?

So a nation, even if recognized by a nation, isn't a nation, if it can't defend itself by force?

So grenada, Lichtenstein, Vatican City, Monaco, the Marshall Islands, and every other country out there without a military...aren't real nations?

That's absurd.

If Taiwan is recognized as a nation, even if it doesn't have military force, what makes it different than say.....Monaco?You two, don't confuse nation with state. The Basque are a nation, but the Basque region is not an independent state.

Nationstate means a state organised along the lines of a nation. That is, France is a state that encompasses the French nation - it is a nationstate.

No, you did not.

Yes I did!

And what if a nation has independence, a secure borders, did not fight a war to gain it, declares statehood, and no one recognizes it?

You are trying to read to much into it. Just think about it before replying. I am sure your legalese mind can figure it out.

They fought a war to gain their independence and they were also recognized as well.It was tongue in cheek, however they were given the land, and had secure borders which were tested by the countries of the middle east which did not recognise Israel's independence. I might be blurring the facts slightly here.

Yes I did!



You are trying to read to much into it. Just think about it before replying. I am sure your legalese mind can figure it out.

Again, there is not enough information to sufficiently answer the question. However, to add the information you are lacking...

If the entity states that they are sovereign and no nation attempts to dispute their sovereignty or state that this land is theirs, then the silence in the international regime can be considered implicit recognition, and therefore it is a nation as it is implicitly recognized as such.

If an entity lays claim to land which is disputed, and the international regime legally recognizes that land as belonging to another nation, then no, that entity is not a nation.

Just as if I say my apartment is a nation, doesn't make it true.

You two, don't confuse nation with state. The Basque are a nation, but the Basque region is not an independent state.

Nationstate means a state organised along the lines of a nation. That is, France is a state that encompasses the French nation - it is a nationstate.

fair enough, though then feel free to take all use of the word "nation" to mean "state" in the appropriate context.

so you just said that Monaco is a nation because it has the backing of france, and that Taiwan has the obligated backing of the United States.

Gee, that's funny. So taiwan does have ability to defend itself to at least the same capacity of Monaco then.

So...is monaco a nation or not?

I believe I already answered that. But just to piss you off, it is considered a microstate. Yes it is an independent nation, a recognized nation, and will remain so for a long time.

Yes it is an independent nation, a recognized nation, and will remain so for a long time.

OK then, and what is the difference between monaco and taiwan?

Again, there is not enough information to sufficiently answer the question. However, to add the information you are lacking...

Nice try. In other words, you cannot answer that without being a hypocrit. Thank you for proving my point that constitutive theory is full of failure.

Nice try. In other words, you cannot answer that without being a hypocrit. Thank you for proving my point that constitutive theory is full of failure.

wow you really can't read can you? Well, let me try to explain it for you in simple terms.

If nobody disputes it, then it is implicit recognition. If it has all the qualities of statehood, and is recoginzed, it is a state.

If it is disputed, and is not recognized by any other nation, it is not a state.

as I have said many times to you corny, just because you can't understand the answer doesn't make it wrong. I'll ask you once again, please tell me if my apartment is a state, yes or no?

OK then, and what is the difference between monaco and taiwan?

Republic of China never declared its independence from the People's Republic of China and the Western Nations switched recognition to the PRC. When Taiwan declares independence, it will be a state among states again.

*snip*

I gave you the scenerio with all the information. You choose to try to gain more information and ignored the fact that I told you all the information you need is there and you proceeded on a tangent.

By failing to answer this:

And what if a nation has independence, a secure borders, did not fight a war to gain it, declares statehood, and no one recognizes it?

You proceded to make up your own information. Answer the question based on the information given. Is said nation a state or not.

Republic of China never declared its independence from the People's Republic of China and the Western Nations switched recognition to the PRC. When Taiwan declares independence, it will be a state among states again.

that's interesting. Reading the theory it states:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

don't see anything about the necessity of a formal declaration of independance, do you?

I thought you believed this theory...guess you don't.

I gave you the scenerio with all the information. You choose to try to gain more information and ignored the fact that I told you all the information you need is there and you proceeded on a tangent.

By failing to answer this:



You proceded to make up your own information. Answer the question based on the information given. Is said nation a state or not.

Bob has brown hair and opposable thumbs. Is bob a human being or not?

Answer the question.

that's interesting. Reading the theory it states:



don't see anything about the necessity of a formal declaration of independance, do you?

I thought you believed this theory...guess you don't.

Nice try my friend. I do subscribe to this theory. You just failed to answer my question.

Let us change this scenerio.

If the Confederate States did not fight the Civil War and was not recognized by ANY NATION, would it be considered a nation under Constitutive Political Theory?

If the Confederate States did not fight the Civil War and was not recognized by ANY NATION, would it be considered a nation under Constitutive Political Theory?

Nope. And they wouldn't be.

Nope. And they wouldn't be.

Why?

I say Declarative. Reason being?

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This should answer for me.

I say declarative because we declared ourselves to be a state separate from that of Great Britain.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Declaritive is the one I find that has more value if only for self-consistency. If the constitutive theory is correct then either at least one state has been around forever, not necessarily the same one, or there are no states. How would the first state be a state if there aren't any other states to recognize it? Its silly.