NationStates Jolt Archive

Spawned from: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562582

Exactly what does everyone think about the 'breakaway provinces' who are actively seeking independence, and their bid to become indepedent? What exactly gives them the right to become an independent nation? What credentials should one have, or do, in order to become truly independent?

On the flipside, when does one officially recognize a 'declaration of independence'? It seems that such recognition is becoming more of a political tool used against that nation/allies, in whether to recognize it or not. Or perhaps the world doesn't know enough about certain situations to rule on such a topic. Opinions?

Please keep it civil, and avoid from straying the thread into a discussion of a specific situation (too much). I know that individual discussions on certain events will be needed, but keep it related to the topic at hand.

Breakaway provinces should have the capacity and means to govern themselves civily, as well as support from the international community and the ability to resist an occupying power.

Breakaway provinces should have the capacity and means to govern themselves civily, as well as support from the international community and the ability to resist an occupying power.

But what gives them the right in itself to become independent in the first place?

For declaring independence, I think first that an overwhelming majority of the population in the province/region/whatever should want to secede, and that ALL people are counted, not just certain ethnic groups.

I'm not sure what else would be needed, but something probably should be.

As for independence recognitions, they've ALWAYS been a tool to use against other nations. Take France's recognition of the United States, for example. They used that to do as much harm as they could to Britain's imperial interests. (Granted, they failed to do much outside of helping us gain our independence, but they tried.)

But what gives them the right in itself to become independent in the first place?

It depends and that could have many loopholes and problems with an exact definition. If the region has a determined population with good leaders and an iron will... if they can show their strength both by blood and by diplomacy, then they have earned their right to be an independent nation.

You also have to factor in what type of government will take over compared to the current government and if either will serve the needs of the inhabitants.

But what gives them the right in itself to become independent in the first place?

I agree with Ascelonia, will and ability determine a nation's right to be independent. If a nation shows a willingness to "pay any price, bear any burden" for it's independence, then it has earned it.

Simple, if a majority of the population wants independence then they have the "right" to cede.

if they can show their strength both by blood and by diplomacy, then they have earned their right to be an independent nation.

Surely you don't need both. If Scotland were to vote for independence, and the UK were to agree, surely Scotland would have every right to be independent, yes?

Also, showing their "strength"? Do you believe that might makes right?

Simple, if a majority of the population wants independence then they have the "right" to cede.

I understand your point, but that potentially runs into a big problem, especially when it's a very slim majority (51-55/56%).

do you have a flag?

I understand your point, but that potentially runs into a big problem, especially when it's a very slim majority (51-55/56%).

when that happens surely all the recount and talk jibber jabber start?

Surely you don't need both. If Scotland were to vote for independence, and the UK were to agree, surely Scotland would have every right to be independent, yes?

Also, showing their "strength"? Do you believe that might makes right?

Yes. Confidence, confidence, confidence. That's how you show strength. I meant strength of the people not in military.

Yes. To show that they really want independence.

I would say when an overwhelming majority of the population desires independence, and can prove they have the ability to govern themselves.

It requires an overwhelming majority (over 80% at least) because the total harm done to the minority shouldn't outweigh the total advancement done to the majority.
Of course, it depends. Say, if 60% support it, 35% are neutral, 5% are against, it's perhaps the case where the 5% should be helped to move if they want to, or have their rights secured by international law. But if 80% support and 20% are against, probably it's not the case.
It also depends on how much tension there is between the majority and the minority - if it's a lot (ex: Christians and Muslims), then the would-be nation should do something to separate them first. If it's just a little (ex: two Christian nations), coming to an agreement is a better way.

Otherwise, I think, it's just about popular support. The nation doesn't have to show the strength. They might well be protected by a stronger nation - it just matters that they've got a reason for independence and a will to have it.

Exactly what does everyone think about the 'breakaway provinces' who are actively seeking independence, and their bid to become indepedent? What exactly gives them the right to become an independent nation? What credentials should one have, or do, in order to become truly independent?


Comparing Kosovo and Southern Ossetia, I guess that the general consensus, at least in the West, is that provinces who want to secede from their country to ally with NATO have all the right to do so, and those who want to secede from their country and ally with Russia don't.

I guess that in Russia the general consensus might be otherwise.

I hate to say "I told so about fifteen years ago when western european countries began recognizing former Jugoslav republics as independent states even when the local governments didn't go through the legal procedure of secession allowed by Jugoslav law"... no, wait: to be honest, it's a comforting idea of sorts, at least on a strictly personal layer.

Anyway, Bismarck called this "Realpolitik".

(I appologyse for my english)


well.... I think we are all forghetting something very important

The History


I think that a province should have a history of its own, that defines it and separate it from the rest of the country

a history of previous independense, a history of strugle agains the imperating order

its inhabitants should have a feeling of nationalism towards the province and not the country




I'm not going to talk about any of them, but its worth mentioning the Euskady, Macedonia, Tibet, etc, etc....

the colonies do also, and rightfully, deserve the independense... we are in the 2008 and there are still some countrys that posses territories in the opossite hemisfere..... trully outrageous (like UK and the Falklands.... that by the way, their true name is Malvinas and history, geografy and geology tells that they belong to Argentina)

s (like UK and the Falklands.... that by the way, their true name is Malvinas and history, geografy and geology tells that they belong to Argentina)

Think The Falkland Islanders might disagree with ya there

When Either:

1. The current province's rights are being exclusively taken away,
OR
2. The province has recently been conquered.

These would be my reasons:

1) Said region or peoples are being extremely oppressed by the gov't that is currently in control of the region

2) Said region or people overwhelmingly support a movement of independence from the gov't that is in control of them.

3) Said region or people are able to support a new nation, through economic, social, and military means. It'd be a bigger problem for them to fight for independence and then become a failed state as opposed to just being oppressed by a gov't. The first scenario would likely degenerate into a regional struggle for resources and land in the failed state, where as the latter scenario would be limited to a intrastate affair.

Unlike Freedom, Independence is a privilege, not a right.

You want it? I say you should prove it.

Unlike Freedom, Independence is a privilege, not a right.

You want it? I say you should prove it.

Well, in your opinion, how should a people "prove" their desire for independence?

On the flipside, when does one officially recognize a 'declaration of independence'? It seems that such recognition is becoming more of a political tool used against that nation/allies, in whether to recognize it or not. Or perhaps the world doesn't know enough about certain situations to rule on such a topic. Opinions?

I'm not sure it's so much becoming a political tool as much as it's always been one.

I can't see any good reason why provinces should ever secede unless their people are being severely abused by the majority population. And I mean properly, not wishy-washy stuff like they feel that as a minority they are unable to purely express their separate national character. There's a risk of provoking a war and causing significant loss of life, and "culture", a set of irrational and practically useless traditions, isn't worth people losing their lives.

Now...I say they shouldn't secede. I have my own theories on why they do when its not logical (I'm a feminist, so needless to say that in short I'm blaming it on the male desire to oppress and rule others. Nevertheless, thats a point for another thread). Anywhere, even if a group does secede, that doesn't morally justify genocide and total war tactics from the majority group in response either. Two wrongs and all that jazz. Really a rebelliion should be dealt with at a local level by concessions to any real grievances, and everyone sitting around a nice big table, along with neutral peacemakers from a third power. As for recognising a new state, thats little more than an ad hoc thing a state chooses to do or not do based on an assessment of which side its in their interests to support. There'd rarely be principle involved here methinks, this is government we are talking about, after all. I'm not saying there shouldn't be, but thats the people in charge for you.

Well, in your opinion, how should a people "prove" their desire for independence?

"Blut und Eisen"- Otto von Bismark

Blood and Iron, my friend...

"Blut und Eisen"- Otto von Bismark

Blood and Iron, my friend...

So Norway should still belong to Sweden because there was no violence during their separation? Should Montenegro be separate despite the lack of violence in their secession?

So Norway should still belong to Sweden because there was no violence during their separation? Should Montenegro be separate despite the lack of violence in their secession?

I was about to make that point.

I was about to make that point.

Sorry, quick fingers and all :tongue:

Violence as a precondition to independence is completely incomprehensible to me. If anything violence against the separating state would justify their separation even more.

So Norway should still belong to Sweden because there was no violence during their separation? Should Montenegro be separate despite the lack of violence in their secession?

Likewise the "Velvet Divorce" between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

I can't see any good reason why provinces should ever secede unless their people are being severely abused by the majority population. And I mean properly, not wishy-washy stuff like they feel that as a minority they are unable to purely express their separate national character. There's a risk of provoking a war and causing significant loss of life, and "culture", a set of irrational and practically useless traditions, isn't worth people losing their lives.
I can see the practicality of this.

(I'm a feminist, so needless to say that in short I'm blaming it on the male desire to oppress and rule others. Nevertheless, thats a point for another thread)

I'm not sure you know what a feminist is, but you sound more like a misandrist. /nitpicking

On topic again:

I would say that having a super majority vote (2/3 I think is sufficient) on it would be sufficient, I also see no reason they couldn't analyze the results by very specific regions to determine what parts of that province actually want independence, since there's no reason to limit it to officially recognized districts...

In the end I support any person's desire to take their property and leave a country.

the colonies do also, and rightfully, deserve the independense... we are in the 2008 and there are still some countrys that posses territories in the opossite hemisfere..... trully outrageous (like UK and the Falklands.... that by the way, their true name is Malvinas and history, geografy and geology tells that they belong to Argentina)
Yeah, history says that they belong to Britain.

http://www.maidenfans.com/imc/pictures/pictures11_vxi/falklands01.jpg

We won them in a war. So there we go, the Falkland Islands are ours :wink:



As to breakaway regions - unless they have a really, really good case for being independent, like a combination of massive ethnic cleansing and also proof that them breaking away would be in the general public's interest and wouldn't stoke regional tensions, no.

So Norway should still belong to Sweden because there was no violence during their separation? Should Montenegro be separate despite the lack of violence in their secession?

Actually both have shed their blood trying to take each other over, so Sweden and Norway should be defined as two separate, but equal powers (bad wording... lol). Montenegro has been massacred by the Serbs and has fought back. This shows they have the will to rule their own country... Any more examples?

Yes... I am partly wrong on Tibet.

When Either:

1. The current province's rights are being exclusively taken away,
OR
2. The province has recently been conquered.
How will this not just lead to an extremely bloody, pointless circular affair.

"Our rights are being taken away, so we secede"
"Err no"
*war won by original host*
"We've been recently conquered, so we are ok to secede"
*war again won by host, who imposes martial law to try to calm things down a bit*

And you're back to where you started, sans £200. Also human life and property, as well as the wasted resources used for war instead of cheering people up.

I can't see any good reason why provinces should ever secede unless their people are being severely abused by the majority population. And I mean properly, not wishy-washy stuff like they feel that as a minority they are unable to purely express their separate national character. There's a risk of provoking a war and causing significant loss of life, and "culture", a set of irrational and practically useless traditions, isn't worth people losing their lives.

Now...I say they shouldn't secede. I have my own theories on why they do when its not logical (I'm a feminist, so needless to say that in short I'm blaming it on the male desire to oppress and rule others. Nevertheless, thats a point for another thread). Anywhere, even if a group does secede, that doesn't morally justify genocide and total war tactics from the majority group in response either. Two wrongs and all that jazz. Really a rebelliion should be dealt with at a local level by concessions to any real grievances, and everyone sitting around a nice big table, along with neutral peacemakers from a third power. As for recognising a new state, thats little more than an ad hoc thing a state chooses to do or not do based on an assessment of which side its in their interests to support. There'd rarely be principle involved here methinks, this is government we are talking about, after all. I'm not saying there shouldn't be, but thats the people in charge for you.

True that. Independence movements should be a check against abusive governments. It should not be handed out like candy for trivial reasons, the way the Basques do it.

Actually both have shed their blood trying to take each other over, so Sweden and Norway should be defined as two separate, but equal powers (bad wording... lol). Montenegro has been massacred by the Serbs and has fought back. This shows they have the will to rule their own country... Any more examples?

Yes there was violence during their histories, it's rare for neighboring states not to have a history of violence, but their independence was not achieved through violence.

Honestly, how can you justify requiring violence for such a thing? Some romantic view of an independence struggle? I don't want to hear silly things about "demonstrating will" (whatever the hell that means, or how it's even relevant) or "that's how it's always been done" I want to hear logical reasons.

I understand your point, but that potentially runs into a big problem, especially when it's a very slim majority (51-55/56%).
Montenegro got its independence with 55.5%. That's because no state, not even Serbia, is vehemently against Montenegrin independence.

"Blut und Eisen"- Otto von Bismark

Blood and Iron, my friend...
So Norway should still belong to Sweden because there was no violence during their separation? Should Montenegro be separate despite the lack of violence in their secession?
Likewise the "Velvet Divorce" between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Ah. That was achieved by them leaders drinking pig's blood while ironing a pile of shirts.

I believe this was answered in 1776 when it was stated in a fairly famous document:

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

We can always use the Montevideo Convention.

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

I believe any group of people that the majority (and not just a small majority of like 51% I mean significant majority, at LEAST over 60%) would like to govern themselves, and they are CAPABLE of establishing a workable state, that treats all of its citizens well should be allowed to become independent or join another nation.

Yerbameteh I think you would find that ALL Falklanders see themselves and British and British alone and do not want either independence or to be part of Argentina, a country that has illegally invaded their territory once before, speaks a different language to them, does not respect their right to choose which nation they belong to and has a completely different culture to them.

Kosovo should be independent as it is overwhelmingly non-Serbian, ethnically, religiously, and linguistically, no matter what the history in the here and noa Serbia has virtually nothing in common with that province and almost all of th non Serbians living in Kosovo would like independence, they have also proised to treat all Serbs as equals to Albanians in an independent Kosovo (something the Serbs never quite managed to do for the Albanians in Kosovo when it was part of Serbia)

South Ossetia I don't know much about but as long as they can create a country that is not going to disadvantage any of its citizens then I don't see why it shouldn't be independent, the same goes for any nation, especially those (like Tibet for example) who are repressed by their governing power.

How will this not just lead to an extremely bloody, pointless circular affair.

"Our rights are being taken away, so we secede"
"Err no"
*war won by original host*
"We've been recently conquered, so we are ok to secede"
*war again won by host, who imposes martial law to try to calm things down a bit*

And you're back to where you started, sans £200. Also human life and property, as well as the wasted resources used for war instead of cheering people up.
Well, it'd have to win before it would be considered a separate place, and considered conquered by my standards.

Well, it'd have to win before it would be considered a separate place, and considered conquered by my standards.

Do you think we still live in the 1300's or something?

Why does everything have to see blood spilled before a solution is found? Nations (well the vast majority of nations in Europe, America, Asia and Oceania and to some extent Africa) simply do not and CANNOT go to war with each other to gain land. It just doesn't happen anymore. Nations win independence on other factors like referendums and political negotiation not who has themost nuclear bombs, I hate to break it to you but we actually don't live in a world where the majority of people would think its acceptable to simply invade a country (well with the exception of the US maybe)

Spawned from: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562582

Exactly what does everyone think about the 'breakaway provinces' who are actively seeking independence, and their bid to become indepedent? What exactly gives them the right to become an independent nation? What credentials should one have, or do, in order to become truly independent?

On the flipside, when does one officially recognize a 'declaration of independence'? It seems that such recognition is becoming more of a political tool used against that nation/allies, in whether to recognize it or not. Or perhaps the world doesn't know enough about certain situations to rule on such a topic. Opinions?

Please keep it civil, and avoid from straying the thread into a discussion of a specific situation (too much). I know that individual discussions on certain events will be needed, but keep it related to the topic at hand.

A 'breakaway province' can be independent and sovereign if it wins a war of secession, or is let go peacefully by the mother country.

Yes there was violence during their histories, it's rare for neighboring states not to have a history of violence, but their independence was not achieved through violence.

Honestly, how can you justify requiring violence for such a thing? Some romantic view of an independence struggle? I don't want to hear silly things about "demonstrating will" (whatever the hell that means, or how it's even relevant) or "that's how it's always been done" I want to hear logical reasons.

So? Fighting for your country basically says... "We care." They have had a history of it and therefore they deserve independence. Listen, if you don't shed blood, what the hell is the point of your country?

Oh yeah... I'm going to go out to the Governor's Mansion and declare my town an independent country and fight (diplomatically) to have it recognized as one. No... that's not how it works. You need to shed blood.

So? Fighting for your country basically says... "We care." They have had a history of it and therefore they deserve independence. Listen, if you don't shed blood, what the hell is the point of your country?

What the hell is the point of any country? For a people to live as they want without outside interference, not some mystical thing that can only be gained by "shedding blood". What exactly is your obsession with violence? Killing people does not add any positive meaning to anything.

Oh yeah... I'm going to go out to the Governor's Mansion and declare my town an independent country and fight (diplomatically) to have it recognized as one. No... that's not how it works. You need to shed blood.

Why exactly shouldn't it work like that these days?

And what if the country they're leaving doesn't want to fight? Does that mean that the new country doesn't deserve independence? If Canada were to let Quebec go, would Quebec have to attack Ontario for their independence to mean anything?

Do you have any reasons for any of this that don't rely on some mystical reverence for killing?

Now...I say they shouldn't secede. I have my own theories on why they do when its not logical (I'm a feminist, so needless to say that in short I'm blaming it on the male desire to oppress and rule others...

your theory on why people seek independence is a male desire to oppress and rule others? have you thought this through?

Listen, if you don't shed blood, what the hell is the point of your country?

sounds a bit like the fascist cult of violence to me.

the point is that people have decided that they would rather associate one way rather than another. if government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, then that is all that matters.

sounds a bit like the fascist cult of violence to me.

the point is that people have decided that they would rather associate one way rather than another. if government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, then that is all that matters.

Sometimes a blood sacrifice is sadly needed - and there's nothing 'fascist' about it.

Sometimes a blood sacrifice is sadly needed - and there's nothing 'fascist' about it.

the claim wasn't that sometimes you need to fight to gain independence. this is obviously true. the claim was that without killing a bunch of people, your independence doesn't count. the violence is allegedly the important thing, not the independence. hence the fascism.

the claim wasn't that sometimes you need to fight to gain independence. this is obviously true. the claim was that without killing a bunch of people, your independence doesn't count. the violence is allegedly the important thing, not the independence. hence the fascism.

It's not even fascist. It's simply barbaric. Barbaric. Barbaric!

The best response to a province which wants independence is to grant independence by stages. Devolve some of the decisions to the province (eg to collect some of their own taxes and make some spending decisions, to institutionalize their culture, religion or language.) But until those powers have developed a distinct history of their own, it is foolish for both the province and the rest of the nation to sever all ties, military legal and as an entity on the world stage. The usual result is a tiny nation without independent trade and military ties yet, at the mercy of all its neighbours including the 'parent' country.