the legitimacy of 'breakaway' regions..

[antaeus]

following on from the kosovo declaration of independence, and the problems in Abkhazia in recent weeks and months..

what makes a breakaway region legitimate? do double standards exist?

[gaius valerius]

Double standards... Triple standards... Quadruple standards...

Idealism = fake

Reality = hard

Truth = lies

Power = what matters

The good of the/some ppl = when it is a) convenient b) lucrative c) nice to have on your cv


Really that's all there is to it. They may tell as many fairy tales about democracy being a universal human right, etc etc, in the end politicians can only confirm to a more grim reality.

That's why I believe these discussions are so pointless. All the time ppl say things like 'OMG these are double standards' and act all amazed... :hmmm:

But really? What amazes me is that ppl are amazed.

[Axeman]

I say we get back Namibia , it was unfarely seperated from us by the queen, curse you England, they are our former German Colony!

Also, we should give independance to Britanny and re-create the Holy Roman Empire just for fun.

[Icefrisco]

If a region defeats their former rulers then they are independant. What is happening in Abkhazia is unfortunate. The war would be over by now but Russia has unfortunately complicated things.

[Evil Maniac From Mars]

If a region defeats their former rulers then they are independant. What is happening in Abkhazia is unfortunate. The war would be over by now but Russia has unfortunately complicated things.

Why shouldn't they? They have their own interests in the region, and the power to assert those interests. Besides, in 1992-1993, the Georgian military suffered defeat at the hands of the rebels. Should have been case closed in your opinion, right?

[Yuiis]

following on from the kosovo declaration of independence, and the problems in Abkhazia in recent weeks and months..

what makes a breakaway region legitimate? do double standards exist?

What makes it ilegitimate?

[Exarch]

following on from the kosovo declaration of independence, and the problems in Abkhazia in recent weeks and months..

what makes a breakaway region legitimate? do double standards exist?

yeah double standards exist
case in point: american civil war-a common misconception being that the civil war was mainly in regards to the having of slaves as opposed to states' rights and Federal rights.

[Last Roman]

yeah double standards exist
case in point: american civil war-a common misconception being that the civil war was mainly in regards to the having of slaves as opposed to states' rights and Federal rights.

oh good God

it was about slaves

about the STATE'S RIGHTS to HAVE SLAVES

[gaius valerius]

yeah double standards exist
.

I'd say even more: only 1 standard exists, and it only answers to what is most beneficial, whether that may be seen as good or evil, and certainly no to the politically useless term justice.

1 true standard, all the others... fairytales.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Might

[RusskiSoldat]

If a region defeats their former rulers then they are independant. What is happening in Abkhazia is unfortunate. The war would be over by now but Russia has unfortunately complicated things.

Yeah, the war would be over, with Abkhazia completely crushed, and Georgia could once again be a NATO poster child.
Now if only you Americans stayed out of Yugoslavia, the war there could also have been over in a similar manner, but for some reason I don't get the idea that you'd be supportive of that.

case in point: american civil war-a common misconception being that the civil war was mainly in regards to the having of slaves as opposed to states' rights and Federal rights.

The war was about a lot of things, mostly about the Southern aristocracy rebelling so as to preserve their neo feudal reign over that part of the country.

In the particular case of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Osetia one part of the problem is the breakaway provinces have large communities of Georgians spread all over their territories. Also the ethnic structure of the population in Abkhazia is almost 50% Abkhazians - 50% Georgians in spite the ethnic cleansing performed against the Georgians in the recent years.

I don't think it was against the Georgians so much as every nationality but the Abkhazians leaving in large numbers. Greeks, Russians and Armenians weren't being ethnically cleansed, and they still left in huge numbers. Not to mention that the proportion is more like 50% Abkhazian, 25% Georgian.
I see no theoretical problem with this (all common sense aside). After all, the Chechens ethnically cleansed Chechnya of Russians to a far greater degree, and everyone is in love with the idea of them getting independence.

On your two last paragraphs: I agree to them mostly. My hope though, is that these states some time will grow a democratic culture big enough to realize the rights of the nations living under their rule. I know it might sound utopic, but if we compare our situation to just 50 years ago, we have made great steps twards this. In fact, in just 20 years, 33 new states have been created.

That number looks less impressive when you realize that a good half of those states were created when the USSR was dismantled and about half of the rest came out of Yugoslavia.

As far as slaves in the south go, it's a different discussion, but, just for kicks, here are a few southern declarations of secession. Go ahead and count up how many of their grievances are about slavery.
This means one of two things:
1) Slavery was a major concern for the states involved
2) It wasn't a major concern, but a popular cause (would explain the constant pandering to it in the founding documents of the Confederacy)
That or the declarations were a work of closet integrationists who wanted to make the South look bad.

[Yuiis]

That number looks less impressive when you realize that a good half of those states were created when the USSR was dismantled and about half of the rest came out of Yugoslavia.

That number is still impressive if you know that. If 30 years ago I would have told you that the USSR was going to dismantle and break away into many several countries, I would have been considered nuts.

Dromikaites:

Actually solidarity was mandatory in some instances form the dawn of mankind. All the able bodied men were supposed to take arms and protect their communities. Or to hunt. Or to work the field of the village (when the land was owned by the community not by the individuals). Some solidarity continues to be mandatory (taxes) nowadays.

If solidarity is mandatory then it is not solidarity. Its acting like peter pan or call it whatever you like but it is not solidarity.

Well, in the case of Quebec it turned out that more people wanted to keep the union than those who wanted to separate. True that sometimes nationalism makes people do strange things like the separation of Czech Republic and Slovakia but at least we saw an instance where breaking away didn't involve any bloodshed.

If secession is done through democratic means it can never be blind nationalism. How can you be against something that the majority of the population wants? The Quebecans had their referendum, they didn't win it, and so they are still part of Canada. Like they should be. Had they won, then they should be split. That is democracy, not blind nationalism.

[gaius valerius]

Might

Something like that. What matters is the national interest, which you can translate in 'might', but also into other things.

[Dromikaites]

The international laws regarding self-determination are derived from the UN Charter. Two UN treaties signed by almost every country in the world, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have this right of self-determination in the first article.

However the way this right should be exercised is not written anywhere. Because of this we can only look at how this happened in practice:

1. The population in the breakaway region had a distinct ethnic origin, different form the ethnic origin of the majority of the population of country it was separating from;

2. The majority of the population wanted to separate.

The two criteria above are to be seen in any successful separation (meaning internationally recognized ones). Most of the time the separation happens because of the minority being oppressed or persecuted though this is not always the case (see the peaceful separation of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia). What is considered unacceptable today is for a region to separate solely because of economic reasons.

That being said, no right is a real right if it cannot be enforced. This is why Kosovo and East Timor are independent while Chechnya or Tibet are not.

In the particular case of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Osetia one part of the problem is the breakaway provinces have large communities of Georgians spread all over their territories. Also the ethnic structure of the population in Abkhazia is almost 50% Abkhazians - 50% Georgians in spite the ethnic cleansing performed against the Georgians in the recent years.

[Yuiis]

The international laws regarding self-determination are derived from the UN Charter. Two UN treaties signed by almost every country in the world, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have this right of self-determination in the first article.

However the way this right should be exercised is not written anywhere. Because of this we can only look at how this happened in practice:

1. The population in the breakaway region had a distinct ethnic origin, different form the ethnic origin of the majority of the population of country it was separating from;

2. The majority of the population wanted to separate.

The two criteria above are to be seen in any successful separation (meaning internationally recognized ones). Most of the time the separation happens because of the minority being oppressed or persecuted though this is not always the case (see the peaceful separation of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia). What is considered unacceptable today is for a region to separate solely because of economic reasons.

That being said, no right is a real right if it cannot be enforced. This is why Kosovo and East Timor are independent while Chechnya or Tibet are not.

In the particular case of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Osetia one part of the problem is the breakaway provinces have large communities of Georgians spread all over their territories. Also the ethnic structure of the population in Abkhazia is almost 50% Abkhazians - 50% Georgians in spite the ethnic cleansing performed against the Georgians in the recent years.

Why is the economic reason unnacceptable then? If a nation/region is being economically oppressed, isnt it as bad (or even worst) as being culturally or politically oppressed?

I dissagree with your opinion that "That being said, no right is a real right if it cannot be enforced.". You mean militarily or through geo-political pressure?...Well that could be a mentality in the middle ages, or in Roman times, but certainly not in the 21st century, where democracy is the core in which all our (at least western) politics are based. Self determination is a right in either one of the two cases you very correctly stated above, no matter if it can be enforced militarily or through geo-political strategies or not.

That a given state that has not yet achieved a true democratic culture, doesn't mean that the nation/region wanting to secede from it doesn't have the right to secede, if both conditions you mentioned above are given.

[Dromikaites]

Why is the economic reason unnacceptable then? If a nation/region is being economically oppressed, isnt it as bad (or even worst) as being culturally or politically oppressed?

Here is what I've meant by economic reasons: if the county of Prahova, where the Romanian oilfields are would want to declare its independence because the citizens there want the money from the oil for themselves instead of being shared with the rest of Romania then it's highly unlikely there would be any international support or recognition. Why not? Because any foreign government which would support such a thing might be soon faced with the same issue at home, where the richest regions might want to separate from the poorer ones.

I dissagree with your opinion that "That being said, no right is a real right if it cannot be enforced.". You mean militarily or through geo-political pressure?...Well that could be a mentality in the middle ages, or in Roman times, but certainly not in the 21st century, where democracy is the core in which all our (at least western) politics are based. Self determination is a right in either one of the two cases you very correctly stated above, no matter if it can be enforced militarily or through geo-political strategies or not.

What I've meant is bad people behave badly (like in oppressing the Chechens or the Tibetans) unless they are forced to stop. Just because the Chechens or the Tibetans have the right to self determinations doesn't mean they would become independent by themselves.

That a given state that has not yet achieved a true democratic culture, doesn't mean that the nation/region wanting to secede from it doesn't have the right to secede, if both conditions you mentioned above are given.

You're right. However the right to do something without the possibility to do it is useless. Your right to own property is useless if the police doesn't catch the thieves. The rights have to be enforced otherwise they're just empty words.

[Yuiis]

Here is what I've meant by economic reasons: if the county of Prahova, where the Romanian oilfields are would want to declare its independence because the citizens there want the money from the oil for themselves instead of being shared with the rest of Romania then it's highly unlikely there would be any international support or recognition. Why not? Because any foreign government which would support such a thing might be soon faced with the same issue at home, where the richest regions might want to separate from the poorer ones.

What I've meant is bad people behave badly (like in oppressing the Chechens or the Tibetans) unless they are forced to stop. Just because the Chechens or the Tibetans have the right to self determinations doesn't mean they would become independent by themselves.

You're right. However the right to do something without the possibility to do it is useless. Your right to own property is useless if the police doesn't catch the thieves. The rights have to be enforced otherwise they're just empty words.

On the economic issue: I agree to the example you exposed, as I dont see sharing resources as a bad practice.

BUT:
We must remember though, that in any case what should never happen is that the regions that don't have oil fields but recieve a great amount of income from them due to this "solidarity", get richer than the region that actually has them. We must also remember that solidarity is a voluntary act. Some states hold on to this "solidarity" concept to justify great redistributions of tax income between regions that in the end make the rich region poor, and the poor region rich through an economical model of just recieving subsidizes.

On your two last paragraphs: I agree to them mostly. My hope though, is that these states some time will grow a democratic culture big enough to realize the rights of the nations living under their rule. I know it might sound utopic, but if we compare our situation to just 50 years ago, we have made great steps twards this. In fact, in just 20 years, 33 new states have been created.

[Scar Face]

The international laws regarding self-determination are derived from the UN Charter. Two UN treaties signed by almost every country in the world, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have this right of self-determination in the first article.

However the way this right should be exercised is not written anywhere. Because of this we can only look at how this happened in practice:

1. The population in the breakaway region had a distinct ethnic origin, different form the ethnic origin of the majority of the population of country it was separating from;

2. The majority of the population wanted to separate.

The two criteria above are to be seen in any successful separation (meaning internationally recognized ones). Most of the time the separation happens because of the minority being oppressed or persecuted though this is not always the case (see the peaceful separation of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia). What is considered unacceptable today is for a region to separate solely because of economic reasons.

That being said, no right is a real right if it cannot be enforced. This is why Kosovo and East Timor are independent while Chechnya or Tibet are not.

In the particular case of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Osetia one part of the problem is the breakaway provinces have large communities of Georgians spread all over their territories. Also the ethnic structure of the population in Abkhazia is almost 50% Abkhazians - 50% Georgians in spite the ethnic cleansing performed against the Georgians in the recent years.

The reason that break away states are illegitimate unless they are fully capable of winning the war themselves, without any international interference at all is a simple one. Under the Criteria you gave, it is entirely possible for a high concentration of immigrants to demand independence, autonomy, or anything else. This is entirely unacceptable, even as a fear.

oh good God

it was about slaves

about the STATE'S RIGHTS to HAVE SLAVES

No, it was about the state being able to determine its own laws and practices. It was about the country being decentralized, and the central Government having limited authority in those affairs. The Government was gaining increasing power, and this lead to tensions. The right of the state to determine the legality of owning Slaves or not was the straw that broke the camels back, as it were. It is naive to assume that any war started due to moral reasons, that is simple untrue. The issue went far deeper than that.

[Dromikaites]

The reason that break away states are illegitimate unless they are fully capable of winning the war themselves, without any international interference at all is a simple one. Under the Criteria you gave, it is entirely possible for a high concentration of immigrants to demand independence, autonomy, or anything else. This is entirely unacceptable, even as a fear.

It's highly unlikely for a say a Chinatown to demand independence because the members there fully realize such a declaration would be followed by economic death in less than 12 months. People are usually smarter than that. If the immigrants (and their descendants) represent the majority of the population in a region with some chances of survival then they might demand autonomy or even independence. But they would do so only if pushed by some kind of discrimination or oppression.

We must remember though, that in any case what should never happen is that the regions that don't have oil fields but recieve a great amount of income from them due to this "solidarity", get richer than the region that actually has them. We must also remember that solidarity is a voluntary act. Some states hold on to this "solidarity" concept to justify great redistributions of tax income between regions that in the end make the rich region poor, and the poor region rich through an economical model of just recieving subsidizes.

Actually solidarity was mandatory in some instances form the dawn of mankind. All the able bodied men were supposed to take arms and protect their communities. Or to hunt. Or to work the field of the village (when the land was owned by the community not by the individuals). Some solidarity continues to be mandatory (taxes) nowadays.

What can and must always be discussed is how the taxpayers' money are spent and how to protect the solidarity systems from abuse. Separating the North of Italy form the south of Italy (one of the ideas of the Northern League) was idiotic because there was always the alternative of cleansing the south of corruption and Mafia. The Italian state had already proven that it can trash the Mafia when the Northern League came with their "brilliant" idea.

[Scar Face]

exactly, whether it was UP TO THE STATES to HAVE SLAVES!!!!

plain and simple people.

the south seceded because Lincoln was against the expansion of any more SLAVE holding states

christ...

anyhoo, back on topic

I suppose whether the legitimacy of breakaway depends on a case by case scenario.

Again, straw that broke the camels back. You are focusing far too highly on one singular point, you are playing to your own emotions far too highly.

It's highly unlikely for a say a Chinatown to demand independence because the members there fully realize such a declaration would be followed by economic death in less than 12 months. People are usually smarter than that.

I obviously did not mean a situation similar to Chinatown...

If the immigrants (and their descendants) represent the majority of the population in a region with some chances of survival then they might demand autonomy or even independence. But they would do so only if pushed by some kind of discrimination or oppression.

I highly doubt it would require discrimination or oppression to do so. Nationalism is blind, you often don't need a spark to set it aflame. Take Quebec for example- Canada bends over backwards to appease them, they have more representation per person than any other Canadian, and yet they still wish to secede. Blind nationalism. Quite common, really.